Skip to main content

About this Show

Public Affairs

News News/Business.




San Francisco, CA, USA

Comcast Cable

Channel 17






Us 52, Nasa 34, Egypt 30, United States 20, America 18, Texas 14, Washington 12, U.s. 10, Mars 9, Obama 8, George Allen 7, New York 7, Mccain 6, California 6, Israel 6, Huffington 6, Eisenhower 5, New Jersey 5, Wisconsin 5, Joe Walsh 5,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  CSPAN    Public Affairs    News  News/Business.  

    July 8, 2013
    12:00 - 5:01pm EDT  

sector expertise has and bringing it into the government. making it smarter, more user- friendly. many, for example, shopping centers use this. if you are applying for federal benefits, we think you should be able to track the status of application and real time, just like you could follow the location of a package all the way to your doorstep. these are things in the pipeline right now. currently when our government asked for bids on a project it is usually written a complicated language with complicated requirements that most people do not understand. we're working to make things simpler so it is easier for small businesses to bid on projects, and will help businesses create more jobs doing work that needs to be
done and by opening up more competition, we will save taxpayers money in the process. launched anly easier and upgraded health priceans will be able to comparison and shop side by side. just like you go online and compare the best deal on cars or computers. because you will finally be part of a new pool with millions of other americans, insurance -- insurers will be competing for your business. we have worked really hard to make these marketplaces user friendly. when the prototype of an application came in at 21 pages, we rejected it. it is now three pages long. that is a lot shorter than the application you have to fill out for private insurance. year i asked congress for the authority to reorganize and
consolidate the federal bureaucracy. we're doing a lot of the work administratively, but unfortunately there are a bunch of roles. that haslegislation poorly designed some of the agencies and forced folks to hoope in the bureaucratic jumping instead of focusing on mission and delivering good service to our citizens. what we ask is consolidate. almost every president have this authority. to redesign the federal government to deliver services better, just like every service owner is required to keep pace with the time. currently we do not have that capacity. i will keep on doing what we can
administratively, but we sure could use congress help. we're operating under severe fiscal constraints. makes sense for us to be able to redesign government so that it can lead -- it can deliver on the function people are looking for. tore working really hard uphold the trust. those of you that believe the government has a responsibility to guarantee some level of basic security and make sure everyone gets a fair shot at success from on corporate or that was to start a business to those that will work in the business, we also have a responsibility to make sure that government works. that is why i am glad we a
people like stockton and many other talented women and men who have signed up to help us tackle the challenges. be asking more people around the country to sign up to serbs. we have to have the brightest minds to help solve the biggest challenges. it is a reminder that in this democracy, we did people recognize that this government belongs to us, and it is up to each of us and everyone of us to make it work better. we cannot just stand on the sidelines. we cannot take comfort in being cynical. we all have a stake in government success, because the government is us. we are doing things right. when we are tracking whether more effectively, that saves lives for folks better in the past of a tornado.
when we are delivering it effectively stayed on improved health care choices, that will save lives and reduce costs. to do sohe potential much better than we're doing right now, but we will need that help of private sector, not for profits, and most of all, make sure we are powering some of the folks sitting here today to make sure they can deliver on the 21st century government at the american people want. thank you very much, everybody. keep up the good work. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> what are we doing now? congress returns today from a week-long july 4 break.
the house and senate meet at 2:00 eastern. the house has bills dealing with corporate accounting. later today the senate voting on judicial nomination. key legislation expected to do was subsidized student loans. you can see this and that live on c-span2. as energy and commerce subcommittee on health looks at the current medicaid system and considers ideas for possible changes. see the hearing live on c-span3 at 4:00 eastern. today willsey discuss foreign and domestic oil affecting national security. now we wills from still be looking at a world dominated by its the traditional pay tv packages. people have waited for years to see this blow apart.
it started to happen. we're starting to see erosion around the edges, not from seismic change, but through the leakage of people out of the system at a slow but accumulating great. over 10 years that will be a very large audience that the programmers and entertainment industry will have to address and serve. >> we are trying to set up an opportunity for broadcasters to turn in some of their respective rights, if they choose to, to decide to channels share or moved to a different part of the spectrum, and in return, -- in return, get a part of the auction proceeds can turn around and sell it to the wireless companies for front -- flexible use. >> more of what is happening in the cable industry from this year's annual cable show. that is to bite on c-span -- n2.ight on cspa
the discussion on redefining of the republican party. this discussion from the annual aspin ideas festival -- festival is just under an hour. >> chairman of the audit committee, so i think we're spending too much on these banners. other than that, everything is going well. a delight to be with everyone here to talk about the future of the republican party. shortught to be a discussion. that is not our view. there are three challenges i want to explore. i could not be more delighted to have some of my friends that represent the best thinking in the republican party on the panel today. i think you know all of them, but i will do a brief set up
introductions. elaine chao, former secretary of labor and fellow at the cherry did each -- heritage foundation. speechwriter for president bush and currently writes columns for the washington post and appears on news hour. your name was? to be introduced as a status for the republican party when karl rove is on the platform is a little daunting. i listened to him for about 50 minutes talking about the last election mainly. that is how i interpreted what you talk about. clearly the premier republican strategists of my generation and our time. i do not want to talk about the last election particularly. ado want to talk a little bit policy perspective. then you can go to the audience
and you can ask anything you want. it seems to make, the question about technology, the question about demographics, all of that is very important. candidate recruitment was right, whether mitt romney connected on whether there is a i think there are serious different hearts about with eachfirst of all, i would like significant development for your panel. it has gotten overwhelms a lot
serious national figure. i served with his father in congress. liked him. he was a smart guy. i do not think he ever went into an election with anybody -- he was proselytizing for an idea. by that standard, he made quite a bit of traction. his son seems to have a different ambition. the polling that i see shows it needs to be taken seriously. not just as a republican nominee, but maybe even as a potential president of the united states. later. but my experience over the decades really -- you have been
vision of conservatism. you talked a lot about that over the years. is rand paul's libertarianism consistent or compatible with communitarian conservatism, even the kind that ronald reagan emphasized with family, work him a church. are these compatible in your mind? [laughter] would you elaborate? >> i think it comes to fundamental matters of governing issues. to apaul really represents
vent to support a verythere are everythingvents now from exhaustion with a traditional libertarian pursuit with money. conspiracy theories, whether widely overblown reaction,
but problem that the republican stagnant for them, no matter americans who are concerned about social mobility. recession was in the worst stage had a 4.5% unemployment rate. i do not think libertarianism
maybe the lincoln administration, quite frankly. [laughter] have to find an active, but mobility in this country. the traditions that speak to that are the lincolnian and traditions of protecting entrepreneurship and economic progress. the catholic tradition which talks about mediating
institutions and solidarity with the poor. theevangelical reform actual groups that republicans thento appeal to libertarian ideology. elaine, that leads to a question -- again i want to focus on policy rationale for if i were a democrat, i will as far that goes. obama, the fed quantitativethe
stock market is rising. policies? different republican model, it is go to the democrats. >> oh, good. >> i do not agree with your initial supposition. it is being questioned, yes. i also dispute that the economy the unemployment rate is 7.6%. the net jobs created in the last month are well below the jobs that need to be created every month just to keep even rate is quite low. from the
year d 7.7%. now, with a higher actually 53 .7%. the labor force, who cannot find jobs. economy in 2008, given all the economy not oust back more quickly? and all past recessions when there has been a deep rock in the economy, he bounced back has seeing that. -- sharp and quick.
and we're not seeing that. back the full recovery of the national dynamism of the inonomyyou can have a lot of the present and in the future. theut the health care, affordable health care act, dodd-frank, that has been proposing tremendous instrictions on banks and fact, i will show you the result on an economy that is not bouncing back as quickly as it should.
stagnant income and social hough libertarianism is not consistent problems of the economy are tooaddress that. is attention to between the kind of libertarianism we have every republican has a school choice.
acknowledge is the libertarian what they tended to do on issues -- what grover norquist calls government out of their lives. join thatve people the big boys get? these things have a libertarian flavor, but it will require republicans.
we have most libertarians who say, if i do not have 100%, i more liberal than any other republican. voting with nancy pelosi. i am voting no, because unless my side at something perfect, i am voting with the bad guys. on elaine's point, i agree with elaine that we do have a message being questioned. has look at the other guy's
american people. the job approval of the president on the economy is 38.58%. it has reached its lowest theoval rating since it has inian household income is decline. states. you look at the last 12 months, and we have created 177,000 new jobs each month. it will take until december 2014 to get back to the number of people, at 138 million, working went into recession in
december of 2007. the workforce will have grown up people, depending on which economist you're talking about. thebothand she reenters challengese economic and both parties need to have a robust debate internally about what they propose to do about it.
i think mike is right. it needs to emphasize the lived experience of most americans. the idea that this has been settled by what has happened over the last five years -- don't believe me. go read about jim messina going to be president in march and april in 2012 and saying, mr. wesident, we cannot win a talk about this stimulus and people barf. not win on the basis of your record. we are to take a fifth of the campaign [unintelligible]" >> guest: bund and go irradiate mitt romney. -- we have to take a fifth of the campaign fund and go irradiate mitt romney. that is not a winning message to say we of them the right things for the economy and as democrats have won the debate. it is very much up for grabs in will be -- will be determined in the next three-four years. rove in thee karl
next election, what is the platform? what are two or three policy- related bangs? we all understand there are negative sides, but every canada it really wants to talk about something. what would you tell a candidate if you were the campaign manager that he or she should run on as a basic platform on economic and domestic policy? >> i'd think republicans have a disadvantage. come from kentucky. i lived in new york and have lived in california. believe it or not, there is a whole swath of the country that does not agree with california or new york, and they're quite vocal and increasingly so. we have to put it into perspective the puritan if you take the long-term point of view, there will be differences.
downs inl be ups and fortune. i think the republican party is looking at itself very seriously and intently. i think the republicans felt very intensely the loss of 2012 so they know something needs to be done. and there is a lot of different opinion as to what is really going on. and as for me, i am focused on jobs and employment in think that is still very relevant. still good number one issue. we need to speak about these issues with compassion. nottimes the republicans do speak with a voice of compassion. i sing that needs to be improved. there needs to be more out reach to groups of color. we are not doing that.
i think the economic message is still pretty set, but that is the advantage of the problem. how many times can you talk about tax cuts, taxations, regulations and too much spending? i sink i am in no position -- to think i am in no position to call for a fight. i think the basics, and you have to say it in a way that is appealing and there has to be much more outreach to the people we're trying to our reach. hereic cantor will be during a panel. what would you say he should advise his caucus in candidates to talk about in the next election? fundamental, a previous decision you have to make. the question right now is does the republican party need to
motivate the coalition or modified? you always have to motivate your coalition when you go into an election. that is necessary. the question is whether they need to modify in significant ways? i think there are good reasons they need to. generational change. calls of governing vision that includes everyone. reach to even people you know will not agree with you. it is the reason we were involved in the campaign in 2000 when one of the president's first speeches by president bush he specifically criticized the idea that there is no higher purpose, no greater goal then leave us alone. that was a criticism we made to
prove the point. >> that as a criticism you snuck into the speech. [laughter] >> we could have been more artful. but then the republican party needs to overcome, i think through symbolic policy, needs to communicate, we get it. we know there is a problem. and the problem on immigration, just to be blunt about it, is not that republicans have not done enough outreach the last couple of decades. it is that an element of the party has set out to alienate, positively alienate the hispanic 187,nity in proposition pete wilson, the arizona law, defeating the bush -- immigration reform, talking about self deportation. the message here, that require some kind of shock therapy. we understand
this has been on the wrong track. at is the reason immigration reform, i think, is an important symbol for the republican party. it is not enough. then you have to adjust people's real world economic needs, and that is an entirely different set of issues. i would also say there are some other issues where you can communicate -- where we are taking a different approach. in an essay i did with pete why notor "commentary" take on the big banks or corporate welfare or other things to symbolize you are not on the side of the corporate culture, that you are actually on the side of individual entrepreneurship and social mobility and other things. tomorrow on the issue like prison reform. that is an interesting issue where libertarians are concerned about 2 million people in prison , fast incarceration. -- had thes have the
humanitarian concerns with ministries with prisoners. liberals are concerned about the racial implications. why can't republicans pick some issues like this that show we are different, we are changing? offectly within the bounds our coalition, perfectly within the bounds of our ideology, but show a kind of creativity that says, we get it, we are shifting and changing. saying,ust conclude by parties win when they come to the point where you say we are tired of losing. that in 1992 with bill clinton, where they gave their nominee the leeway to do unexpected outreach on welfare and crime and other issues in order to reposition his party and shift their coalition. with georgedid that w. bush in 2000. they trusted him on the essentials, on tax policy and other things, and then they gave him the leeway with
compassionate conservative is -- talking about faith-based institutions. the question is whether republicans right now are in that place or whether they are going to have to take another loss in order to reach that place. >> go ahead. >> i have a slightly different view from my 2000 college. i don't think they gave him leeway. i think they liked it. and i think that is the recognition. ordinary republican primary voters want a candidate -- rand paul is doing this. when he stands up and says we need to go campaign and the latino and hispanic community, we need people with tattoos, it strikes a hopeful note on people who do not agree with him on foreign policy, for example. in 2000 we constantly had the conversation -- that is sort of risky, but by having bush and the sizing compassionate
conservatism. no, it isn't. people rally to it. , whos paul ryan represented districts carried twice by clinton, by by al gore and twice by obama, how did he it reelected with 60% of the vote? because he has an optimistic road growth message that is not the typical republican message, and he talks about it endlessly in every community of his district. if you are an auto worker in janesville or latino family are african-american in the exurbs of milwaukee, he is making the pitch to you. you've got the message better developed than the party does at large -- he's got the message better developed than the party at large. but my one difference would be with -- if we had candidates with coverage who stood up and said, here's my message, and it is an optimistic one, and it will grow our party, i have yet to meet the many republicans his attitude is i want fewer people
in the republican party and fewer victories. you can't really trust a guy who thought ronald reagan was too liberal in 1984 and supported somebody else for president. most republicans like this. it is just finding the right. it is like -- jack kemp was this kind of republican. the kind of republicans who were broad and thinking about how to broaden our base and broaden our support and get more people inside the tent and how do we take timeless principles and apply it to the new situations. >> i don't disagree. i would only say that mood and parties change. when partiesiods are looking for converts and times when they are looking for heretic. >> i disagree. not parties, but leaders and parties. sometimes when the mob goes this way and a leader goes that way. do you think it was easy in 2000 with some of the people we had to deal with him of the gingrich
leftovers? at the party was responding to it. clinton saw bush -- george, when you said that, compassionate conservative thing, i knew we were in deep trouble. [imitating clinton] that was brilliant. it would keep your people. [laughter] know, i love this thing about the base of the party. is base of the party reflected through the choices and primaries, but it is the leaders who dominate the public dialogue. you have too many public leaders in public dialogue who are retrogressive and not forward- looking. i want to take time for questions but i want to talk one more zone because i want to keep focus on policy. in a note it does not dominate
election, a party without foreign policy and national security rationale is really not a governing party. i think it helped the republicans for most of my adult time and hurt the democrats certainly since the mcgovern caffeine. -- campaign. it seems we are opening a debate and the republican party that has kind of been glossed over the past few years. the reach of the american policy, the role of the american and world intervention. i thought we might of had that debate in the 2012 primaries -- haley barbour running for president. one of the best chairman the party has had in my lifetime and a great governor of mississippi. there you had a guy from the deep south of mississippi, former chairman of the rnc, worked for ronald reagan, and he was critical in his speeches before he decided not to run -- the afghanistan involvement, iraqi involvement, military budget. i was listening to him, mostly focusing -- most people are focusing on whether he would run but he was saying something very different than what we have ever heard from the deep south establishment republican.
i think he would've had a resonating -- i do not know if he would have one thing the nomination. in debate did not take place 2012. looks like it will take place now. our friend john bolton says he may run for president, particularly to combat the -- just that kind of thinking. splithave a irrevocable in the republican party on foreign policy? what is the foreign policy message for our party if it wants to be the governing party after the 2016 election? libertarian -- on the domestic front but not so much on the international front. the republicans were isolationist. libertarian view before world war ii, and it hurt the country and it hurt the party. we had a brief rotation with the with robert taft in the aftermath of world war ii. but you are right, since then, we have been an internationalist party that recognizes america is a great country with a special responsibility in the world stage, like it or not. if we leave, it has an influence
for the positive and if we don't leave, the world goes to hell in a handbasket pretty fast and it affects our shores. i am not sure how much of a debate we will have on it on the surface. there may be some things. but i thought it was interesting. rand paul, when he entered into do a full front attack on afghanistan and iraq and the war on terror but he had an image of the drone hengelo by starbucks on the corner of main and third in aspen, getting ready to find in aspen-based terrorist and unleash a hellfire missile into the starbucks. [laughter] pointed out inke his comments about paul earlier, that was a great intuitive political sense of what the american people would like or not like. what i didn't hear him say, you know what, i am against us taking that drone and unleashing the hellfire missile on anwar al-awlaki, us-born terrorist in the fortyemen behind
hood massacre and encouraging violence on americans. but we will see. if he does have sort of a full on international foreign policy that believes there is a war on terror and america has a responsibility on international stage, then i think he will come up short. but as yet, he is not really engaged in that way. >> let me ask mike and elaine to just this in a little different way and then we will get to questions. i think we want people to line up behind microphones. it is not just rand paul. our friend, president of the council on foreign relations, has written a book -- right over there. i am loyal. anything bad about his book -- >> i will not say anything bad about his book. tweeted called me and and link to a column that he felt was critical of it and now i have to read the book and report back of the paper is due by the 15th of july --
[laughter] great about early august and i am really looking forward to the experience. -- i will get my grades about early august. [laughter] >> my daughter interned at the council last summer and as please. his argument basically -- he could make it himself, but we will not let you. a period of time where america can focus more heavily on its domestic challenges because we have a little bit of a breather in our obligations of international leadership. doesn't that fit quite consistently, elaine and mike, what you are saying about what the republican party needs to be able to do to appeal to voters in this very difficult time economically? >> i think that has been a shift going on. when i talk to remember that house and senate, republican members, they did not come out of the regular cold war era. they did not share many of the
assumptions about america's moral role in the world. they are much more skeptical about engagement in a variety of places. and i believe -- i want to disagree -- i don't want to disagree with karl onto many things -- -- but i think rand paul was a conviction politician. i think his conviction about the nature of what he views as of the national security state is the central conviction of much of his views. he believed that is a source of overreaching government in our history come a sense the cold war. it is likely to be real contrast by the way, in a risky way, adopted the mantle of internationalism and engagement. talking about foreign assistance and other things. there could be a real serious argument on this. i am unsure how it would turn out. the only response you could give is, substantively, when you ignore the problems in the world, they don't ignore you.
a situation where we think we can disengage from the middle east and then you get into a crisis that spills out over borders and produces terrorist threats and destabilize its key allies and produces humanitarian nightmares , and then we wonder why weren't we more active shaping events instead of allowing them to fester. happens in america, is we think these are optional commitments until they become crises that threaten us. >> i think it is interesting that so many of the aisha layson isolationists somehow believe foreign aid takes up like 50% of the united states budget. in reality, it is less than p percent.of one i think it is ironic in an age of raider globalization there is further and further talk about a link back and isolationism. >> we agreed to reject the rand paul richard haas isolationism. i agree with mike about rand
paul being a conviction politician, and it will be interesting if he enters the 2016 race and we have a rubio- paul discussion on it. my point is also he is a very clever practical politician. >> he picks a fight. >> he will pick a fight. my experience in 2011 and 2012 -- i speak on a lot of campuses, and i have run into ron paul kids, and about two minutes of the conversation it would be applied to the palestinian people and the oppression of the s of theby the jew hapless poor palestinian people. ampant anti-israel, almost antis emetic view of a lot of these ron paul supporters. to say onarter israel, i did not want to be associated in view that sort of infected my dad's campaign so i will go to israel and make it clear i understand israel is a
strong ally of the united states, etc. but it will be interesting to see the tension between the convention politician and practical politician who says, ok, i will talk about the starbucks is not about and while a lot be -- anwar on a lucky -- talk --i, and i will element talk about cutting the age budget that will potentially will potentially put israel another ally that risk. >> we will go back and forth, starting over here. very much. shelley from washington, d.c., national finance cochair for ready for hillary pac. [laughter] >> tells me you will get a lot of donation out of visit the goat. -- out of the zip code. i am here seriously to listen to your point of view and learn from you. you have spoken a lot about rand paul. would you please address who would you like to see where preventing your party in 2016
come and why? -- representing a party in 2016, and why? >> i will give a very simple answer. i think there are going to be a lot of different candidates. we will see governors. we will see paul ryan certainly. i do not think paul will have a leg up aired i think the republican primary will be quite robust and will have lots of different candidates. i am going to not answer that. [laughter] that is why i wanted to be first. [laughter] i don't want to punt, either. one of the advantages republicans have. we talked about a lot of the disadvantages, but it is a pretty strong bench for the next election. chris christie is a tremendous natural politician. >> a big figure. [laughter] tremendous affection for jeb bush, who i think of the
stance -- by the way both the libertarian side and the common good side of a lot of these questions. i look at, i think somebody like bobby jindal. i think people like paul ryan. it would contribute a lot to the discussion. i also think beneath that that, there are a number of younger i the experts within the , smart,an party intelligent people. some libertarian, some from a more communitarian perspective that could provide policy for an innovative campaign. but my general concern is that we just have seen deeply unstable and disturbing primary processes. mitt romney really suffered -- a candidate can really benefit from a tough primary challenge. being seriallyit almost beaten by a series of joe candidates. that is the way the primary process worked in the last
election, and i would hope it would not in this case. enthusiasms bydd billionaire supported candidate to put a lot of money on .elevision who are not serious that is damaging to the party. >> i would add to the list of names mentioned earlier, rubio, walker of wisconsin, basic -- kasich of ohio and potentially snyder of michigan. i am interested in seeing them run. i want to see how they perform. i want to see if they are able to articulate a forward-looking economic message that, as mike says, speaks to the experience of people we need to get inside our tent. i don't think it was the money that was spent by outsiders of the millionaires supporting this information running television ads. i think it was worse than that. all you needed to do in this contest with the proliferation of debates, was he needed to raise enough money to get an airplane ticket to get you to the next debate site.
the pastontests in have been contest of will and muscle where you have to have a message, an organization, advertising, you had had money to him and all the accoutrements of a campaign and a good quality candidate. here all you had to have what an outstanding debatable -- performance when you are one of nine people sharing 90 minutes. all you had to do was have seven or eight good minutes on the stage and it was onto the next debate and the next contest. so,, i think limiting the number of debates and topping the practice of picking liberal moderators whose interest was to portrayas republicans as the weirdest people in the face of the planet will be constructed. we ought to required people to mount a real campaign other than just raise enough money to get a debate ticket. [applause] >> phoenix, arizona. given the overwhelming majority of increase in wealth and income since the bottom of recession to today has occurred with the top
one percent or two percent. one, why? too, is this good or bad, in your view? >> i think it is bad. mike is very right and talking about the aspirational meritocracy, which has all right -- which is always characterized america. my parents came from -- i came iwan as an immigrant. we had nothing. somehow, despite the bad years, we just need this was a land of opportunity. i think that was a very important message, that somehow our party and all of america has to maintain. i think it is very harmful. this one percent, i just think it's one percent is such a bogus -- let me put it this way. i think it is such a demagogue issue. m talked about a skills gap. there is a widening gap between people earn a lot of many and people don't. the is primarily because of skills gap. more and more we are in
knowledge-based economy, and employers are paying higher wages to those workers who have more knowledge. it actually works to the advantage of women because women are now graduating in larger numbers from professional schools, colleges. so, we are going to see more and more women taking leadership positions. so, i think it is a very bad. but we need a real honest look into what the one percent really means. i am sure karl and mike would have a better -- >> i think there is a disturbing dynamic at work here. and it is not -- not because of the wealthy. it is because a significant number of people at the bottom of our system, about one third of workers now -- which is a scary notion -- lack the education, the skills, and family structure and background -- if you read put in him, the three major factors that determine social mobility -- if you readputnam. to compete in increasingly
meritocratic system and globalized system. the effect of that is -- but republican should not downplay this as though we are not concerned about any quality. i think the traditional republican view is, in a highly mobile system where people can go from the bottom to the top, inequality is a natural outcome of capitalism. in a situation where you can't move to the bottom to the top, inequality is a caste system. it is essentially condemning a group of people generation after generation to not have the ability to compete in a free market. that, to me, is exactly what republicans need to be addressing. my concern, as i already the 1980 republican economic message of low taxes and high growth does not address that. it does not even speak into those concerns. now, we need economic growth. right now it is anemic. you can't get social mobility in the absence of a dynamic economy.
policiesave to have that actually are specified to build social capital in market oriental ways to help people be able to compete in a free economy. i think it is a problem. look, mike hit it. the main driver is family and education. i agree with him entirely. it needs to be a robust effort. it is going to be more likely to happen at the state level than federal level, because a big component is breaking up the education oligopoly failing to many children. we have a system in some of our big cities that says we are more concerned more about the input event outcomes and we do not give a crap if we are educating -- in the district of columbia, one out of every two system -- student to enter the public school system will never graduate from high school. that is a stain on our great country. and we need to address it. [applause] now, i might have a slightly different view -- i am like you lean. i did not come up with what -- with much.
i went to college because i got a $1500 a year scholarship from william randolph hearst foundation. i freshman year, my dorm room, my apartment was a rented storage space under -- i held my close on the nail. one of the things you get from auto repair shop, the cage with a light bulb inside and i had to work three jobs to work my way through school. and i think there is problem. our government has gotten too big and there is too much corporate welfare and too many breaks that benefit the big guys of the people who are ready got it. you get these wind farms where we are paying gigantic amount of money in the name of green energy to a couple of fly-by- night guys who have been able to put together a lot of money and make a quick up. yeah, ourid -- facility paid off in two years. we've got all of our capital investment back in two years. theenefited because we had -- the tax credit, and so the taxes that we got our entire
investment back in two years in this huge facility. you talk to some of these offshore guys drilling -- tom delay put the stupid tax credit for offshore oil development. we don't need it, but we have to take advantage of it, because it is there. we don't need. what the hell are we doing that for question mark we can take -- make money without it. we need a tax system that benefits the big guy over the little guy and way too many benefits that flows to people got the money that keeps us from providing the resources necessary -- and it keeps us all paying too much in taxes because they are running up too much debt because most of the corporate welfare, if not all of it, is being paid for by borrowing money we don't have. so, i think we got to address it. i want somebody who is going to stand up and say we need to take on corporate welfare at the same time we are doing these other things that anna for the republican right to rise. we believe in the right to rise. the ability of a daughter of immigrants to rise.
we believe in the son of a geologist and a stay-at-home at home mom who sold avon products, we believe in the right to rise and we need to find ways to do that. but we have to couple that with a robust attack on corporate welfare in the tax system. [applause] you got out of the cramped dorm room and into more spacious facilities and able to enjoy a better standard of living, until you move into the white house. i saw your office there. it sounded like the dorm room. [laughter] >> it was great though. >> it has been a lively conversation but so far i think you panel failed to address the real elephant in the room, which is the white -- right wing of the party, the tea party. karl rove alluded to it saying we had too many public leaders who dominate dialogue with the retrogressive language, and we need people like them are moderate. your party will not let people like them be elected, and that is why the congressional
leadership and even lower popularity rating than the president. >> i love how the easy target is the tea party. that is not right. marco rubio is tea party. jeb bush appreciated the tea party. there is a difference between the tea party leadership and the tea party sentiment. this concern that grew up in 2009 and 2010 in reaction to president obama's policies and in response to the affordable care act on the rising amount of debt and the theory that somehow we can spend our way to prosperity brought back into politics -- or brought into politics for the first time a lot of ordinary americans who were deeply concerned about these. beenea party movement has taken over, in some respects -- not all of it -- but some of it by people who have all of their agendas and have been around for a long time. i love the tea party sentiment. i had a book tour around 2010. i did 110 cities in 90 days. people come through the aisle and they would be getting me to
sign the book, and they said i have been a member of the marianna, florida, tea party. i asked them, what have you done in politics before? ritually although libby bled the local level said nothing, they have not been -- virtually all the people at the local level said nothing, they have not been in before. then the someone with a mailing list, an office in atlanta bank by direct mail and e-marketing firm spending 70% of the money raised on expenses. i am a defender of the tea party sentiment. i think it has been a healthy thing for american politics, and like all new movement it gets a little rusty and looks a little ragged and gets a little rambunctious, but it has been a healthy movement for american politics. i don't blame the par -- problems of the people who are intransigence and insisted on having a party sort of move -- he opposed the- nomination of abraham lincoln because he was too moderate. i don't worry about people like that. i worry about finding the
leaders who will have a positive message to draw the party in the right direction. >> either of you want to respond? >> he did it. >> let's go to the aforementioned tom. >> from washington, d.c. i we have a place over here. >> and ambassador. >> we have the gallery in basalt -- [applause] we give the family discount. we have not touched on the social issues. >> i think we are out of time, it was nice -- [laughter] rat --et keep the getting wrapped around the action -- axel on abortion and the day right and then you have dumb senate candidate sayingrape was not get you pregnant. how do we solve -- [applause] guess thatolve -- i
means getting good candidates, choosing candidates -- do we send them to school somewhere and say, don't say these things? >> electroshock therapy. >> you thought this question would come from some left wing plant, didn't you? [laughter] >> i guess i will take a shot of it. parties don't get to start over. they are built over time. in the republican primary it is last time, the largest single group are conservatives. and a lot of that depends on how they are led. eorge bush led them in one way and rick santorum leads them in another. both have different political out comes. i think that matters a great deal. i'll address the elephant in the room here. i think the republican party is going to remain a principled
ink mental prolife party. i think it's going to under go a significant shift on gay rights as the next generation rises. i think republicans will be united by a belief that these things should be decided through democratic means rather than imposed by courts. i think they are going to be united that these are -- so i think there are sources of unity within the republican coalition even on some of these issues. but you're going to have people like rob portman in the republican party who are for gay marriage and have strong convictions. that is not uncommon. it's often a personal issue for people you know. it's often your circle and family. i think republicans are going
to have to find a way to accommodate the fact it's going to have diverse views on that set of issues and communicate that to the next generation. >> we haven't talked about the far left element of the democrat party. and i'm sure this session was set up because we have four republicans here. a similar panel on what's the future of the democrat party would be interesting as well especially as the president enters the second term. there is something about the second term that never turns out the way you want it to. you can have all these wonderful ideas and the president is seeing his trajectory is not what he expected. the i.r.s. scandal has come up, the drone issue has come up. in terms of party, there is all this left part of the democrat party that is not talked about. republicans are at a disadvantage because the media focuses more on the divisions with the republican party.
the republican party understands what happened 2012. they are working hard to find a new path. but there is nobody in charge. there are all these different people vying for attention for their own voice and this is part of the beauty of what we have in america. >> i've been informed that we are done. i'm sorry we can't take any more questions. >> in preparation for today's event i went back and read a lot and there is a particularly insightful column written on june 17 on this very subject. though my column today in the "wall street journal" pretty damn good. on the 17th of june mike wrote religious conserve trives the single largest constituency in the gop and compos a quarter of the entire elect rat. they are not bag badge but
planks in the hall. when i thought was a really important insight and mike goes on to say that what is required is imaginative leadership. a republican reformer cannot use religious conservatives as a foil. he will need to appeal to religious conviction as a motive for reform. it's easier to go out and say a stupid thing. it's a tougher thing to do what michael is saying is necessary here which is to lead. to take the base of the republican party and lead it in a way that allows us to expand the numbers without sacrificing first principles but making ourselves accepting to current circumstances. and this is the fwreat challenge of both political parties. let's not kid ourselves. both political parties succeed and fail at this over the course of decades several times. they fail and suck said. there will be an interesting debate within the democratic
party, that is dependant upon high turnout in the african-american community and universal support for their party is going to have a challenge post obama rare. there is going to be some tension there. both political parties face it and the key one of the republican party is how do we keep the religious conservatives part of that coalition while allowing ourselves to be heard by other people. >> that was my main objective. thank you.
>> we are expecting today's white house briefing with jay carney to get under way. we will have that live for you right here on zahn. as we wait we will bring you a portion of this morning's "washington journal." host: each week we look at how your money is at work in a different federal program. we will spend the next 45 minutes speaking about the interstate highway system. the history, funding, how it is kept up. we're joined by prof. jonathan gifford who oversees the
master's program at george mason university for transportation policy. take us back in histor explain the creation of the interstate highway system, specifically president eisenhower's involvement. guest: there are two key ate. one is 1944 which predates president eisenhower. 1956 is the day a lot of people associate with the beginning because it was when we got funding. in 1944, congress created the system in long in the 1944 highway act. it took another 12 years before the funding package was put together. that created something called the highway trust fund which is still with us today. that funding package was the thing that launched an aggressive construction program over the next 30 years and
continues to fund the system today. host: another one of the key dates is 1919. this is according to a story on the history of the highway system from "the tennesseean." they used the only transcontinental road we had, the lincoln highway. talk about how the trip influenced president eisenhower hen he became president. uest: 1913 was the beginning
f the lincoln highway. e are marking the centennial this year. it went from the east to the west coast. it was a privately promoted highway. the 1919 convoy stands out in history because eisenhower participated in it and he was president when the trust fund was enacted into law in 1956. there is some folklore about hether the convoy influenced his thinking in 1956 when he was president. clearly it gave him a sense of the challenge of moving military material across the country. it is also said that during world war ii, his observation in europe of the autobahn brought home to him the importance of a national highway system for military
response. host: as it exists today, it is about 47,000 miles long. 0% was paid for by the federal government. the upkeep costs are about $40 billion a year. he estimated cost is about 128 billion in the making. talk about the maintained cost and how the government maintains its highway system. guest: it is important to understand is a state owned and operated system. it was federally financed hrough the trust fund. the states are the owners of the interstate highway system. the federal government owns
very few highways in military bases, national parks, in the washington area some are owned by the national park system. the vast majority are owned and operated by the states. the financing mechanism was the federal government collected evenues from the gas tax beginning in 1956 that went into the highway trust fund. the receipts were apportioned across 48 states and in 50 tates. then the district of columbia and some u.s. territories in a formula based on the population of the state, the amount of federal land held in the state because some states have a significant fraction of their land owned by the federal government. the states know what the pportionment is.
they can build in any particular season or in ulti-year construction plans to say we're going to build these highways that are part of the interstate highway system. the federal government will reimburse us for 90% of those costs. host: we're talking with professor jonathan gifford from george mason university. if you have comments or questions about the interstate highway system or want to tell us about your observations of he system as you are traveling on the country this summer, and give us a call. the phone lines are open. let's talk about the health of the interstate highway ystem.
ive us a status check. guest: the most recent report from federal highway administration, the agency responsible for looking at the interstate highway system, has 2010 report based on 2010 data based on the performance of the system. the system is improving. it is a 50-year-old system by and large. a system like that requires investment. ou mentioned the maintenance expenditures. i think you said $40 billion a year approximately. this is a little more than $100 er person per year to maintain he system.
the system is there. it has not been expanded much. it is 47,000 miles long. when it was originally enacted, it was about 44,000 miles long. in the ensuing 70 years, we've added 4,000 miles to the interstate system map. the country has changed a lot in those decades. it is a need to reinvest and renew the system. it is not falling apart. there was a time in the 1980's when there was a well-known book that talk about our crumbling infrastructure. i think the picture is better today. he federal funding part of that is in a lot of trouble. we are facing reauthorization in the next year that i think will pose difficult questions. host: that is the part funded by the gas tax. is the gas tax keeping up with the money needed to invest in the system?
guest: the short answer is no, not even close. there are a couple of things going on. the primary source of funding is the gas tax. that is a per gallon tax. f you buy 20 gallons of gas, you pay 80 cents. i may not be doing my math right. you are paying about $4 for the federal program. it has not changed in 20 years. host: how many miles you can get on your car -- guest: if you are driving the arbor or electric that burns no gas at all. the vehicle fuel efficiency has gotten better in the last 40 years. we're seeing higher fuel efficiency. that means more miles per gallon, which is a good thing from a co2 standpoint, but not good thing from the highway funding standpoint.
host: we have the status of the highway trust fund on the screen. take us through what we are seeing. guest: the light colored line is the spending. the dark blue line is the receipts. outlays are exceeding their receipts. the big blue bars are showing where the balance of the trust fund will go based on the gas tax current revenues alone. that means the general fund will have to bail out the highly trust fund. it will have to put funds into he highway trust fund to continue to support the spending levels predicted. host: to the tune of $90 billion in 2023. is this something the federal government has done before, bailed out the highway trust fund? guest: it has put about $40
billion in general funds into the highway trust fund in the last five or six years. that is a cumulative number. we're looking at a $90 billion shortfall in 2023. this is a significant problem. host: let's go to the phones. dick is from lansing, mich., on the independent line. caller: when eisenhower built the highways, the states collected the taxes to keep their state up. if you have a greater population, you collected more taxes. i would like to know when the states sent their taxes to the government and the government aid you do not need as much to
get by on. when did that happen and why do the states not take care of their own roads? guest: there are a lot of questions in there. i would like to unpack a little bit. i would like to correct something you said. the states are collecting the money and sending it to the federal government and the feds are sending it back. in one way, you could say it is true. by and large, the states collector on revenue. the federal government collects its revenue. the taxes are collected at fuel distribution points. it depends on where the gasoline is being shipped on who collects a tax. the states have another system themselves. states and localities are large players in infrastructure spending.
this is an issue about the federal gas taxes collected in virginia or california and sent to washington. does california get back 100%, what is the return to each state from the federal taxes collected within its boundaries? hat has been a significant political issue the last 20 years has congress has removed the highway program on several occasions. we have some states that do not have a lot of economic activity but are important from a transportation standpoint. they may not collect enough which generate enough federal gas taxes to support their system.
some of the large western states with a lot of federal land do not necessarily have the amount of traffic or vehicles that burn the amount of gas on their highways to support this system. how do you deal with those sections of the system? that question has gotten a lot of debate in the last 20 years. some of the more urban states were traditionally putting in more than they were getting back. senator moynihan in 1991 opened the issue of saying, what is the equity of sending more than you are getting back? if you got 100% of what you put in, there is no point in sending it to washington. you could convert it into a state tax. many states like having the federal taxes as part of their program because there is a lot
of interstate traffic that uses our system. host: we're talking about the interstate highway system. some stats on how much it costs to build different parts of the system. some statistics on the longest interstate routes. interstate 80 from san francisco to new jersey, 2,900 miles. we are taking your calls as we discussed the interstate highway system. ken is from daly city, california, on the democratic line. caller: there is a big movement by the privateers to privatize federal highways. they sort of sneak in. out here they are experimenting with people paying to use the hov lanes. it is the beginning of the
privatization of our infrastructure. i hope all americans would be p in arms. this is essential. i travel a lot on highway 80. it is a very important road. it connects the industrial north all the way across. it does need a lot of maintenance. the idea of privatizing, i hope the politicians would be honest enough not to take campaign contributions from rivateers. host: you have worked on
standards for these private efforts. guest: we are seeing a lot of growth in private investment in highways across the u.s. it is happening in europe and other countries. there is a large amount of rivate investment. that has to be paid back with a profit margin. it is a different funding model than we have used since the 1950's. i would remind the caller that prior to 1956, we saw a large-scale expansion of highways and many roads were built as toll roads and continue to operate as toll roads today.
the business model and organizational delivery system, the pennsylvania turnpike is a state authority. the new jersey turnpike is a state authority. these are state entities. virginia has been a leader for 20 years looking at attracting private investment in infrastructure. it has been a leader on public-private artnerships. there are some important issues associated. one is the issue of tolling, which is very controversial. we have a system that has largely been untolled. to say we will now begin to impose tolls is very controversial in the communities they serve. virginia has seen a strong
reaction to proposals to put olls on interstate 95 that goes north and south through the state. this is an issue we will grapple with. the flip side is there has not een a lot of political support raising gas taxes and fixing the trust fund problem. these facilities are expensive to maintain. the money has to come from somewhere. the users paying at the tollbooth or through a gas tax re the ones that ought to be paying the bulk of the costs because they are the primary beneficiaries. it is either tolls or gas taxes. there is no free lunch. you can squeeze efficiencies out of any program by doing a review, but that is not nearly enough to solve the problem. host: what about secretary ray lahood's proposal on miles traveled? how would that work and where does it stand? guest: that is an interesting
proposal. i am amused because i remember one of his earliest comments after he was sworn in as secretary was to talk about whether we would consider a iles traveled fee. he was sharply are permitted by the white house to say the obama administration would not consider this until the economy had fully recovered. host: how would it work? guest: in principle, it is simple. in practice, is more complicated. in principle, you would pay a fee based on the amounts that you drive, perhaps varying by time of day or which highway you are driving on. if you are driving on an interstate highway on the inbound leg at rush hour, he would be paying a higher per
ile fee than if you were driving late in the evening or the early morning hours of a road that was not otherwise congested. host: how would the government trucks that? guest: that is a big to tell you would have to figure out. it is used for tolling in germany right now. he germans have a high standard of privacy protection. i was in germany and took a tour of the system. they have a good system that charges tolls on the trucks but does not retain data for tracking purposes. when the billing is resolved, the data is destroyed and are retained. one issue applying this in the u.s. is the privacy issue. is the government going to be watching a transponder mounted
in your vehicle that knows where you are and where you are going? it is similar in the east. we have 60 million ez pass tags. there is no long-term tracking. any time you use a toll, the system knows you have paid a toll at a particular time and place. it debits your account accordingly. when the balance runs down, they will ask you to pay cash r charge your credit card. host: earl is calling from massachusetts on the democratic line. caller: i have a question regarding construction of the highway systems. the bidding process, how does one become involved and eligible forbidding some of these major jobs? i am a native american. i am wondering how i could possibly put a company together to bid these jobs. guest: that is an interesting
question. it is a large industry. it has extremely large companies and a huge number of small companies involved in local highway projects, state highway projects, interstate highway projects. typically the state departments of transportation own and operate the interstate ystem. they are concerned about ensuring there are local companies and local employees involved in some of the projects. the financial and bonding requirements for doing a large multimillion-dollar project are substantial. the state wants to make sure you have the wherewithal to complete the project.
a large company will subcontract a number of paving or construction or delivery jobs. most state departments of transportation would have information on their web sites about how to participate. they may have training to make people familiar with their contract in. ost: the system is about 47,000 miles. is it still expanding? guest: from 1944 to 2013, it has grown about 3,000 miles. we are slowly adding mileage. most of that has been added in the last 20 years, the increment of 3,000 miles. he history of the interstate
>> we're going to break away and take you to the white house briefing with jay carney. >> it is always an honor and a privelenl to be before you today. it's been a while. for that reason i had a little catching up to do and i apologize for being late. before i take your questions let me just note that as a follow up to this morning's cabinet meeting, the president is meeting with a group of healthcare innovators to discuss the administration's partnership with the private sector to support future invasion in healthcare delivery systems. fulede by the recovery act healthcare records have doubled since 2008 and quad drubbled in hospitals. these developments have been supported by the administration's health data initiative which is making
goment data available to private healthcare providers and to the public. the president will be talking to leaders in healthcare about how these data powered tools are making an impact on patient care. with that i will go to your questions. >> we're seeing chaos around egypt right now. reports are more than 50 tead in protest. how is the united states addressing that and what is the president thinking? >> let me begin by saying that the united states remains deeply concerned by the increasing violence across egypt and by egypt's dangerous level of political porlization. we condemn any violence as well as any incitement to violence. we express our con dolenses to those who have been killed and their families and hope those who have been wounded recover quickly. we call on the military to use maximum restraint responding to
protesters as we urge all those demonstrating to do so peacefully. we condemn the calls for violence made by the muslim brotherhood. egypt's stability and democratic political order are at stake. egypt will not emerge from this crisis unless its people come together and find aen non-violent path forward. we urge political and military leaders to portfolio ties egypt's deep divisions. the united states is not aligned with nor is it supporting any political party or group. we remaniac tively engaged with all sides and we are committed to supporting the egyptian people as they seek to salvage their nation's democracy. but we have been clear these decision belong to egyptians. looking forward we will work with a transitional egyptian government to return to a
democraticically elected government. it must be defined by reconciliation rather than repriceles of the political process. we call on the mail tear to avoid arrests targeting specific groups or movements. we call on all political parties and movements to remain engaged in dialogue and to commit to participating in a political process to hasten the return of full authority to a democraticically elected government n. answer to your question specifically about what we call what happened. i'll be blunt. this is an incredibly complex and difficult situation. president obama made clear our deep concern about the decision made by the egyptian armed forces to remove president morsi from power and spend the constitution. it is also important to acknowledge that tens of millions of egyptians have grievances with president morsi's undemocratic form of
governance and do not believe this was a coup. indeed they were demanding a new government. there are and again to be blunt, there are significant consequences that go along with this determination and it is a highly charged issue for millions of egyptians who have differing views about what happened. in answer to your question i would say that we are going to take the time necessary to review what has taken place and to monitor efforts by egyptian authorities to forage an inclusive and democratic way forward. we will review our requirements under the law and do so consistent with our policy objectives and consult with congress. >> some administration officials are saying that the white house is showing they prefer to have an outcome where this isn't labled a coup? >> this is a complex situation. and it is not in our interest
to move unnecessarily quickly in making a determination like that because we need to be mindful of our objectives here which is to assist the egyptian people in their transition to democracy and to remain faith to our national security interests. so i think that it is fair to say that we will take the time necessary to review the situation, to observe the efforts by egyptian authorities o forge a way forward and then we'll consult with congress and review our obligations under the law and mindful of our policy object tives. >> there was a rofert report over the weekend that the united states had diplomats urging the brotherhood to accept morsi's ouster.
can you comment on that? >> we were engaged with egyptian count parts throughout this process and we're very focused on the democratic process and on as we made clear and president obama and others made clear for the need for the government to be responsive to the people of egypt. in the end, decisions about who will lead egypt in a democratic process will be made by the egyptian people. the authorities an effort to move that transition forward and to return to democraticically elected governance as soon as possible. >> what is it you need to review in determining whether it was a coup or not. seems clear the army noved and morsi moved out. >> i'm being very clear with
you and everyone here this is a complex and difficult issue with significant consequences. and it's also an issue that is highly charged for tens of millions of egyptians who have differing views about what happened. millions were calling for a new government. many, many other egyptians took the opposite view and you have an extremely polarized situation in egypt. our objective here is to promote efforts at reconciliation and inclusiveness in a movement forward towards a return to democratic governance. and progress on the democratic transition in egypt. and we will review our obligations and requirements under the law and we will consult with congress but we will take the time necessary to do that in a way that is responsible and everybody ises our longer term policy
objectives. >> are you trying to find a way not to cut off aid? >> no. i think i would say on the question of aid, the relationship between the united states and egypt goes beyond the provision of assistance and it is based on decades of partnership and our commitment, this country's commitment to the egyptian people. everything we do will be focused on supporting a reduction of the porlization within egypt and hastening egypt's return to a democratic government as soon as possible. we view this decision, this determination through that prisk. as we deliberate through this process and we engage with egyptian thoferts and observe what is happening and monitor what is happening in egypt
going forward, we will keep our focus on what we can do to help heasten a transition back to democraticically elected governance. what we can do to help foster reconciliation in ejipt in a situation that is highly polarized. as we call on all sides to refrain from violence and to refrain from any incitement to violence because it's obviously an exthe record narrowly complex and difficult situation. >> there are protestors in egypt accusing the president of backing terrorists. can you explain what factors you take into consideration or the president takes into consideration as he debates whether to continue aid? >> well, again, the factors are what i described which is what decisions should we make and
can we make in accordance with our requirements under the law in consultation with congress that foster the objectives that we have in terms of supporting the egyptian people as they make this transition to democracy. and what supports our national security interests. when it comes to our position, we've been very clear that we don't support a group, we don't support a party, we support a process. and the president has also made clear that democracy is not simply the holding of elections, it is democratic governance. and it very important in egypt and elsewhere where this transition is taking place or has the potential to take place that everyone recommend nices that holding an election is the first step in making a transition to democracy and
that there are many other and many difficult steps ahead beyond that. and we're focused when it comes to egypt on a democratic process taking root and reconciliation taking place so that the egyptian people can joy greater possprerty and greater freedoms in the future. and that is something that is in the interest of egypt, of the egyptian people, of the region and of the united states. >> what is the white house's message to venezuela, nicaragua who have offered asylum to snowden and in order to leave russian he would have to pass through russian passport control, what message is the u.s. administration conveying to russian if they allow that? >> the united states has been in touch with countries through
which mr. snowden might transit or which might serve as final destinations for mr. snowden. and we've made clear he's been charged with fell anies and as such he should not be allowed to proceed in any further international travel other than travel that would result in him returning to the united states. so all of our consultations through the appropriate channels have been -- have included that basic message. and that has been true as we've said all along in our conversations with the appropriate russian authorities that while we don't have an extradition treaty with russian, we believe there is a strong legal justification for russia to expel mr. snowden and given that he is wanted here on felony charge that is he should be returned to the united states. now we have a very important
relationship with russia and as the president has said and others have said, we believe that this is not something that should negatively affect our relationship with russia, it is something that we are pursuing through the normal channels here, democrat mat i can and law enforcement channels. i'm not going to speculate about out comes that we hope don't come to pass because we pleeve the case is very strong that mr. snowden has been charged with fell anies and needs to be returned to the united states. >> there have been diplomatic con tabts to each of those countries by the u.s.? >> the state department would have nskets about which specific contacts have been made but i believe we have had contacts with all of the countries that might serve as transit points or final destination points.
and obviously that includes countries that have been identified as having received asylum requests. >> just to be clear, is the administration actively considering cutting off aid to egypt? >> what i would say, john, is that we are monitoring the situation in egypt. we are taking the time necessary to make the determination about what happened and what to label it, if you will. and we will work with congress on that and on the issue of further assistance. i would point out simply that our relationship with egypt is not limited to or defined solely by the assistance that we provide to egypt. it is broader and deeper than that. and it is bound up in america's support for the aspirations of the egyptian people for democracy, for a better
economic and political future. and we support that. we support that process. so our decisions with regards to the events that have happened recently in egypt and how we label them and analyze them will be made with our policy objectives in mind in accordance with the law and in consultation with congress. >> i'm asking a very specific question. i think you answered in there but let me be direct. $1.5 billion in aid to egypt is one of the things in active consideration cutting off that aid? >> i think it would not be in the best interest of the united states to immediately change our assistance programs to egypt, we think, not just i but we think it would not be in the best interest of the united states to do that. we are reviewing our obligations under the law and we will be consulting with congress about the way forward with regards specifically to the assistance package we
pride. >> no immediately cutoff? >> we think that would not be in our best interest. >> you said over the weekend desire to return to a democraticically elected democrat that is a corporateically elect t government. the white house is not calling for the return of morsi? >> we are calling for a democraticically elected government. it is for the egyptian people to decide who their leaders are. the president has expressed his concern about the actions of the military of removing morsi from power. but we are mindful as i said at the top about the polarization in egypt and views of millions of egyptians about the undemocratic governance of the morsi government and their demands for a new government. i'm trying to be candid here
about you'll get no argument from me if you go on the air and say this is a highly complicated situation that rirse very careful monitoring and enl gaugement and we want to take action and make decision that is helps egypt move forward in this process and helps ejipt reconcile and egyptians reconcile as they move forward towards democratic governance in the future. >> but as deeply concerned as you are about how morsi was removed, you are not calling for him to be reinstated in any way? >> we are calling for a democraticically elected government. >> to follow up on the question about reporting over the weekend about what exactly the administration's involvement was, "the new york times" reported that susan rice spoke to a top morsi advisor to tell
him that the takeover was about to happen. did that call actually take place as described? >> i don't have specific conversations to read out to you. i think the military issued a deadline. it wasn't for an american efficient to inform anyone in egypt about that deadline. i don't think that is particularly eliminating point in terms of who conveyed to or how it was conveyed to egyptian efficients that the military set a deadline and intended to act on it. what i will say is we were obviously engaged with egyptian officials in conversations that reflected the position the president made clear which is he believed that democracy was more than just an election and that it was encome nt upon egyptian authorities to be responsive to the people they govern, to all of the people they govern.
i'll leave it at that. but that is the role that we have and will cont to play in egypt which is to advice adherence to democratic governance, to responsiveness to the rights and concerns of and to gyptian people reconciliation and negotiation over conflict and violence. >> what would you say to senators lay hee and mccain who look at the situation and say it's obvious to them it's a coup. and the law is specific about when i coup occurs what needs to happen with u.s. foreign aid. and senator mccain's words believes it would be a pressure point to achieve some of the objectives you've just described. what would you say to that conclusion and those who believe it's important to declare it a coup and apply the
law as its written? >> i think we are going to make this determination based on a time line in the best interest of a democratic transition in egypt, that is consistent our law requirements and national security interest. >> it could become a coup. >> i've been blunt about the fact we are going to examine this and monitor this and take the time necessary in making a determination in a manner consistent with our policy interest and national security sbfment that includes our assistance program to egypt consultation with congress including the members that you mentioned. we do not believe that it is in our interest to make a presipt to us decision or determination now to change our assistance program right away. rather we believe it's
important to evaluate this, to examine our obligations under law, to monitor what is happening in egypt and the steps taken toward a return to democratic governance and also to, as we do, make clear our view that violence is not acceptable. that to call on the military to exercise maximum restraint. to call on protesters to protest peacefully. to call on groups and parties and specifically in the case of the muslim brotherhood not to incite violence. we condemn any effort to incite violence because that is not in the interest of the egyptian people or egyptian nation going forward. >> it's clear that this administration is not eager to have morsi come back to power but there is conversation today bout perhaps a ref ren dumb on
morsi on the existing government as it was because there is little momentum behind creating a different government. would the administration be open to that? >> we do not pick egypt's leaders. we support a democratic process. it is up to the egyptian. >> we support a return to democratic governance and elected democratic government. how that process unfolds will be up to the egyptian people. we made clear our broad views about what needs to happen and should happen in the interest of egypt as well as our national security interests. but i would not rule in or rule out any manner that is legitimate that achieves that goal which is a return to a democraticically elected government. >> you don't want any assists or intimidation of the media. how would you rate the performance so far on those criteria?
>> we've made clear a couple of things, one -- >> and violence is happening too and we condemn violence and call on all sides to exercise restraint. we call on the military to exercise restraint and protestors to protest peacefully. we call on all parties to engage in a process of reconciliation and negotiation that can hasten a return to democratic governance. this is a very challenging situation mostly for the egyptian people and the united states. >> [inaudible] >> what is not helpful to give an hourly or daily agreed. objectives road known. we urge all parties to reconcile to negotiate and to move forward on a democratic transition. >> is it your feeling there is
some am gutety in the law that says u.s. must send aid to which a democraticically elected leader is removed by the military? >> i'm saying it is in our interest to take the time necessary to review what has taken place and monitor efts by egyptian authorities to forge a democratic way forward. i'm being blunt there is not a simple or easy answer here. and that it is in our interest to acknowledge that there is not a simple and easy answer here. t is rather in our interest to observe, to engage, to consult with congress, and to do what we can to hasten a process in egypt that encourages non-violence and encourages a return quickly to democratic
governance. >> can the president waive this law or the requirement that the u.s. suspend aid? >> we are going to take the time necessary to review before we make a determination of the nature you're suggesting. >> can the president determine what time is necessary to review, can set the time frame and what would that be? >> i'm not going to give a time line for you because i think what we've said is we're going to take the time necessary to review this, we're going to consult with congress. we're going to do so in a way that reflects the requirements that exist under law and we're going to do so in a way that we hope enhances the possibility of fulfillment of our long term policy objectives which is a transition in egypt to democratic governance and a
democraticically elected government. >> is this a matter of days or weeks or months? >> i will refrain from putting an end period on a process that is currently under review. i will say we will take the time necessary and do so in consultation with congress. obviously a number of members n both houses have important views to be heard and we will consult with members of congress on this very important matter. >> one final thing, a couple mbers of congress, senator mccain in mccain said you are behind the curve again. >> the curve we're interested is in a curve that leads to a stable democratic egypt where the rights of all egyptians are respected and upheld, where egypt has the opportunity to grow and thrive economically
and to fulfill it's enormous potential in the region and in the world. and those objectives are very much in the national security interests of the united states and our allies. and those are the objectives that we're mindful of. when we're taking the time necessary to make the determination i'm talking about, i'm being blunt, we're taking the time necessary because that's the right thing to do in the further answer of our policy objectives and what e hope to be a return to democratic governance in egypt. >> spending the employer mandate and act we have learned waiving requirement in the law that people's incomes be verified before they are able to receive a subsidy to buy insurance. obviously it doesn't change for insurance companies.
and individuals would have to buy coverage or pay a fine. what do you say to all those people who have to follow the law when they say see the administration making changes and say why do we have to follow the law? > everyone has to follow the law. but we make changes and we are flexible because that is the right thing to do. we have made clear all along we are flexible working with states in the way they implement the affordable care act. when we see things that can be changed in a way that makes healthcare reform more effective, for example the initial 21 page application, we saw that that could be improved and we improved it and tush turned it into a three page application. this is a situation when you talk about delay of the employer responsibility provision that affects about 4%
of employers with more than 50 workers. the fact is that 96% of employers roughly already provide insurance and numerous experts agree on this matter that the decision to postpone implementation of this provision of the affordable care act will have no significant -- >> we're going to break away the house is about to gavel in. this is live coverage on c-span. speaker's room, 8, shington, d.c., july 2013. i hereby appoint the honorable steve womack to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, john a. boehner, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: the prayer will be offered by our chaplain, father conroy. chaplain conroy: let us pray.
loving and gracious god, we give you thanks for giving us another day. as the members of this assembly return from days away, celebrating our nation's birth, grant them safe journey. may they return ready to assume a difficult work which must be done. we pray for the needs of the nation and world and all of creation. bless those who seek to honor you and serve each other and all americans in this house through their public service. may the words and deeds of this place reflect an earnest desire for justice, and may men and women in government build on the tradition of equity and truth that represents the noblist heritage of our people. may your blessing, o god, be with us this day and every day to come and may all we do be
done for your greater honor and glory. amen. the speaker pro tempore: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1 the journal stands approved. the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentleman from new york, mr. israel. mr. israel: i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentlelady from north carolina seek recognition? ms. foxx: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady from north carolina is recognized for one minute. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. 's time to get serious about american energy independence. removing barriers to save
offshore energy production is a necessary component of a serious american energy strategy. our country has been blessed with an abundance of resources, and if we utilize those resources responsibly rather than ignore them, we can reduce dependence on foreign oil while creating one million new jobs. during the same week an boim global warming advisor stated that, a war on coal is exactly what's needed, end quote, republicans moved our country away from dependence on foreign oil and created jobs. this stands in stark contrast to president obama's energy priorities. under his environmental protection agency, 17 north carolina coal units are being shut down, gas prices remain high and the shovel-ready keystone x.l. pipeline remains stalled. jobless americans and working families deserve better. the president would do well to follow the all-of-the-above energy strategy we led with in the house. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for
what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? mr. israel: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. israel: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, with so many challenges in the world today, student loan rates and turmoil in egypt and syria, i think it's important to remind ourselves of the resilience of our faiths. in new york i joined the congregation of a church to celebrate their centennial jubilee. it was established in 1876. in 1913 ground was broken for the beautiful church that stands today. it stands today with 1200 families, worshiping in english and spanish and korean, with food banks and immigration counseling and human services and interfaith partnerships. i'm privileged to represent this church, mr. speaker, and i'm especially privilege to talk about it on this floor of this congress today. i yield back the balance of my
time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? does the gentleman seek unanimous consent? mr. pitts: mr. speaker, obamacare's long-term care insurance program has been abandoned and appealed. its pre-existing condition insurance program shut down. its small business exchanges have been delayed. and on and on with this train wreck. last week the president chose to blatantly ignore his own law by putting off the employer mandate until 2015. there's no waiver procedure in the bill so i guess senator reid didn't think it important when he was crafting the bill behind closed doors. business across the country are confused about obamacare, and this does nothing to clear up that confusion. it just puts off to a more politically convenient time beyond the 2014 mid term elections. the mandate has already reduced working hours for many americans and discouraged the creation of full-time jobs. businesses have spent billions getting ready to comply. obamacare is already a failure,
harming businesses and workers and american health care. the president has chosen to break his own law by his actions. let's stop the extra legal waivers. give every american a waiver by repealing the law completely. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. burgess: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. burgess: thank you, mr. speaker. last week the administration once again adjusted the affordable care act in an effort to try to save the takeover of the nation's health care. on friday, the latest change was announced, the new health care exchanges will not verify an individual's income for the year as originally planned. eliminating the verification requirement how will the government determine who gets health care subsidies? well, they're going to use the honorable system, because no one would lie about something like that. this will open the exchanges to a staggering amount of potential fraud. it is also clearly a political move. the administration has made it clear they want as many people
as possible to sign up for the exchanges so they can reap the public relations benefits about talking about the popularity of said exchanges. all of this comes at a time when the federal health programs are already stricken with fraud. and now the administration wants to introduce a new program. on new program is based something else. what happened to trust with verify? i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? does the gentleman seek unanimous consent? the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. wolf: when president obama was awarded the nobel prize, it was based on a misplace hope rather than actual record. in fact, the obama administration has been silent or inept in country after country when it comes to advocating for the repressed, the marginalized. more than millions of tibetens set themselves aflamed and yet
human relations watt not talked about the summit. genocide persists in darfur and thousands are going hungry and yet this has been vacant for nearly four months. on the obama watch, christians, including an egyptian christian community, are persecuting people throughout the middle religious freedom are in the back burner of dealing with islamist governments. i will talk about the abject failure to champion human rights and religious freedoms around the world. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek recognition? mr. wilson: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from south carolina is recognized. mr. wilson: mr. speaker, the president's playing politics with the american people's health care. according to an editorial public licked in "the wall street journal," quote, the white house seems to regard laws as mere suggestions,
including the laws it helped to write. the heels of the one-year suspicion to offer insurance to workers, the administration is now waiving a new batch of new obamacare prescriptions. these disclosures arrived inside a 606-page catch-all final rule that the health and human services department published on friday, july 5, a classic friday news dump with extra credit for a holiday weekend. h.h.s. now says it will no longer attempt to verify eligibility for insurance subsidies and instead will rely on self-reporting. with minimal efforts to verify if the information consumers provide is accurate, end of quote. house republicans have warned for years that the failure of obamacare is too unworkable, too overreaching and too destructive for american families. house republicans voted 37 times to repeal or to defund obamacare. the american people deserve a health care system based on the
doctor-patient relationship, not mandated by the government. in conclusion, god bless our troops and we will never forget september 11 and the global war on terrorism. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> i ask permission to speak for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman seeks unanimous consent, correct? the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to speak out against the effects of sequestration on the department of defense employees and their families. or ing this week, 650,000 so department of defense employees will go a day a week without pay. i'm appalled they would offer such a measure. here's what these furlough means for our texas families. approximately 45,000 department of defense civilian employees in texas will be furloughed. the cuts specifically hurt families in the 23rd district who work in joint base san antonio, fort bliss in el paso.
today in fact, the "el paso times" said furloughs will affect 11,000 employees at fort bliss and beaumont army medical center. mr. gallego: that results in $3,300 in lost wages per employee and it means on average most of these workers will effectively receive a 20% salary cut each pay period for the rest of the fiscal year. do the math and that's nearly $149 million lost in texas. mr. speaker, with every passing day, thousands of jobs are at risk. we have to put politics aside and work through the issue of sequestration. thank you so much. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from north carolina is recognized. >> mr. speaker, last week our nation celebrated 237 years of independence. it is the dedication and
sacrifice of the members of our armed services that allows us to celebrate this each years, yet, it is troubling that our service members are struggling to have job retraining and placement programs they deserve. mr. holding: after returning home, a veteran seek helping and education benefits runs into over 600 forms he or she must fill out from over 18 federal agencies. this is not only burdensome for them but created a backlog in the department of veterans affairs. roughly 70% of its claims pending over 125 days. mr. speaker, house republicans have passed several bills this year to improve veterans work programs and decrease the v.a. backlog through funding for technological improvements like digital scanning, paperless claims processing. this is a start. but we need to do more. our troops put their lives on country. or our we must do whatever we can to help veterans obtained the benefits they so honorably
earned. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, this is to notify you formally pursuant to rule 8 of the rules of house of representatives that i have received a subpoena issued by the superior court of clayton county, georgia, requiring that i appear to testify in that court at the trial of a particular civil case. after consultation with the office of general counsel, i have determined under rule 8 that the subpoena, one, is not a proper exercise of jurisdiction by the court. two, seeks information that is not material and relevant and/or, three, is not consistent with the privileges and rights of the house. accordingly, i intend to move to quash the subpoena. ra ned sincerely, shond harris, district director for the honorable scott.
the speaker pro tempore: the following enrolled bills were signed by speaker pro tempore thornberry. the clerk: h.r. 1151, to direct the secretary of state to develop a strategy to obtain observer status for taiwan at the trienial international civil aviation organization assembly and for other purposes. h.r. 324, to grant the congressional gold medal collectively to the first special service force in recognition of its superior service during world war ii. h.r. 2383, to designate the new interstate route 70 bridge over the mississippi river connecting st. louis, missouri, and southwestern illinois as the stan musial veterans memorial bridge. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess until approximately 5:30 today.
possible changes. we will have that hearing live at 4:00 eastern. 3t 6:30 eastern tonight, c-span will be live tonight with a former cia director and he will talk about how foreign and mystical oil affects national security. president obama's pick goes before the senate judiciary committee tomorrow. c-span3 will have live coverage tomorrow.
partner, and honest partner, more than the american president, sheltered and cocooned as he is and what harry truman called the great white prism. that is what i concluded after five years and hundreds of interviews, that those presidents with rave spouses willing to speak sometimes hard truths that others are unwilling to speak to the big guy, those presidents have a distinct advantage. let me give you an example. had pat nixon been able to cut through her husband's paranoia, watergate might have been avoided him about pat had long since given up on her husband by the time they reached the white time theye -- by the reached the white house. they were leading virtually separate lives as you'll see in my portrayal of this saddest of all presidential couples. i don't give my husband advice, shoe said, as he doesn't need
it. is there not a man or woman alive who doesn't need advice from the person who knows him or her best? >> a conversation about presidential marriages and how first lady felt to shape american history, tonight at 9:00 eastern on c-span. mobile technology and social media have made opposition research and video tracking of candidate more prevalent in political campaigns. next, a panel discussion from the annual net roots nation convention, looking at candidate statements and blunders that became news stories. this discussion runs one hour and 20 minutes. >> good afternoon, everybody. we are going to get started here great thank you for coming to the panel. i'm the moderator this afternoon with this incredible set of
folks here. the panel, legitimate tape, using republicans own words to shut that whole thing down. bonus points if you get those references, which hopefully you do. if not, by the end of this panel, you will. i'm going to introduce our panelists. to my right, we have the president of american bridge, the powerful, permanent research arm of the progressive movement of the autocratic politics. they brought you some of the greatest hits of the last election cycle, which we will get to. also worked for harry reid, who some of you may have heard of and also worked on campaigns around the country. to the right, we have jeff
mcintosh, the communications director at emily's list. hopefully everyone here knows emily's list. working to elect pro-choice then candidates all over country, stop the assault on women's rights and keep people like todd akin and richard murdoch from getting reelected. she also has one of the best twitter feeds on all of the internet. you are going to thank me later. follow her right away. to the right is james carter as fourth, you may know him the researcher behind the 47% tape, which was kind of a big deal in the 2012 election. is the guy who helped make that whole thing happen. , he now has his own
research firm, carter research and is consulting for media matters for america, the media 'atchdog foreign and fox news site. all the way at the end is amanda, and all-around amazing reporter and editor at the huffington post. fans outf you seinfeld and inthere is a line -- she isffice we say just an all-around fantastic reporter. the first thing i want to do is run through the year that was in research, sort of the greatest
hits, if you will. i want to start with james to give us a little background to start off with. >> i had been doing this ofearch, looking for videos republicans saying stupid rings because it was fun at first. it went from it being fun to it being a much more time- consuming hobby and then now it's my job. was a gradual process. during that, i was doing a lot of searching on youtube and other video sites. i can across a video of what it
said was a video of a private romney fundraiser talking about chinese sweatshops. i had held on a story about chinese whip shots -- sweatshops. besides it being a clandestine i'm taped video, the fact that it was something i had worked on before peak my interest. i dug into it. i was trying to figure everything i could about the video, try to track down the person. every time i would, with a lead, i would tweet about it, and get feedback from people. during this, i was followed on twitter by a person whose winner handle was the same as one of the various youtube accounts that had posted pieces of the video.
trying to figure out if this person was legitimate, i follow them back and started messaging with them. the immediately didn't want to tell me anything about the video, which was a good sign. if it was someone who was faking it, they would've tommy stuff that was wrong. eventually, after i discussed with him with a few days, i asked him to let me introduce them. the rest, they cap me in touch, but it was a long negotiation process. the whole video came out and it made a big impact. >> that is an understatement. a good rundown. >> you guys are at the forefront of research and tracking,
talking about -- what comes to mind from 2011-2012? >> in a lot of what we do, i go back to the election cycle before that, 2010, with sharron angle. i bring her up for a specific reason. you are seeing so many people work with video. republicans continue to become more and more to the right. i read some of the focus groups when senator reid was running for reelection, and you would tell somebody sharron angle believes this. people wouldn't believe you. no one is that crazy. no one is that far to the right.
it became one of those things where it wasn't just someone -- it became an editorial tactic to show somebodies words. this is the footage. this is what they said. no commentary needed. do you really want this person in the senate? that takes us to 2000 -- 2012. mitt romney is a poster child for this stuff. i wouldn't have a job except for mitt romney. there is him. the second was todd akin. to give you background on todd akin, what most people do not realize about that clip, the
legitimate rape, he actually said that on a thursday. it was a pretaped interview. it is him and his press secretary, and the journalist he is giving interview to. no one in the room caught it. todd akin did not think yet said anything wrong. neither did the journalist. the journalist teases he has an interview with todd akin. a couple things come out. this is not one of them prayed one of them was something that he had said about voting rights. another one was getting rid of the school lunch program. we are already licking our chops. this is great. this thing is coming out on sunday. we have trackers across the country.
we are sitting at home on sunday morning eating cereal, watching this. todd akin says that. from there, the chain of events were he he sins that clip back to us in washington. no one is in the office. we are all online. we come up with a plan. we give it to a few different reporters. the first person -- probably an hour later, cnn picked it up. all the mainstream media piled on. by 6:00 that evening, the pundits were wondering if you would make it through this. by 7:00, romney was saying this was not my guy. by the next morning, john cordon
said that todd akin should step down out of the race. the only thing i see about that is you talk about how that caught on wildfire. another thing fair member, it is important to remember, most of the people writing about this, a lot of people were home and were not doing anything. this is a nice, beautiful day. people were out. >> you -- when you see the clip, or when you see richard murdoch make is stumble into the
territory of horrible things about women and rape, what is going through your head? how are you dealing with this? >> on that sunday, i was having a super lazy day. i got instant message from the reporters would been in touch with. he was like, i hope you do not have plans today. that was the end of my sunday. bringing in murdoch is interesting. you would think after eight again, the fierce and swift smack down that followed, everyone would have traded as lightly as possible. then you have richard murdoch a couple of months later, weeks later agreeing with him and saying if women get pregnant as a result of ray, it is a gift from god.
that led to my favorite headline of 2012. that encapsulates the entirety of the 2012 election cycle. it was "for some reason murdoch's comments not -- in missouri." there is so much you do not know what to do with each individual one. they have not actually learned their lesson. i thought the lesson was do not say rape. you can say rape read you can watch a lot of testimony happening on sex assault happening right now. it is informative. it is what our lawmakers ought to be doing. the word is not a problem. the board is the belief behind it. ed is why they cannot help themselves. two weeks ago, we saw eric erickson talking about how terrible was the woman were breadwinners.
everything from hormones to porn was cited as why we see the sexual assault epidemic in the military. we know that is the easiest way to get that stuff out. you wanted to be in their own words. as the holy grail. if you can put someone saying -- if you can see them say it, there is no way to unite as what they think and what they feel. i'm not go through your head when you hear this kind of stuff. when men turned out in historic numbers in 2012. if there when to keep with the same playbook, so will we. we are looking forward to 2014. >> we have your video.
♪ >> how did america get so mediocre? >> i think parents became -- both parent started working. the mom is in the workplace. >> this is liberals who defend this. they are very anti-science. look at the natural world. the male and a female in society, the mail typically is the dominant role. >> the air force base exchange, sexually explicit magazines are being sold. they are awash in sexual activity. >> the young folks coming into
each of your services are anywhere from 17 years old to 22 years old. gee whiz. the hormone level created by nature sets in place the possibility for these types of things to occur. >> you have got to laugh or you will just solve the whole time. we are trying to have some fun with it. we mock them. >> there are these -- whoops. increasingly, there are these
moments of lawmakers saying things in their own words. how do you pick what to report on? how do you resent it. what is the process when you are becoming inundated with this kind of gaps? >> if you are trying to pitch the media, if you go to your local members town hall and get a great clip, and think the huffington post will love that, if you send it to the media, one important thing is that you send as much of the clip as possible. i've had many people tried to pitch here are 10 seconds of a lawmakers saying something really crazy, put it up. i'm not go to put it up. i have no idea if you're taking them out of context. as reporter, i do not want to see blue-black -- i do not want to have blowback and say you are taking out of context.
in the wisconsin senate race in the gop primary, one of the candidates was a venture capitalist. he was at a speech. there were reporters in the room. he said that he is so sick of hearing some stories about poor people cannot get their food stamps. he wishes the media would stop covering this. and to cover more stuff about the debt and the deficit. that never gets covered. i was sent 10-15 seconds. i said i'm not going to run a break and won a big chunk of the speech. my source sent me the whole speech. if i was accused of taking it out of context, they could see that it was clearly in context. i think that is very important.
giving the reporter is much as possible can -- the campaign did a smart thing. they had a tracker record everything joe walsh said. it was public. anyone can go see it. they didn't have time to go watch all of this. he did not necessarily find the nuttiest things he said. it was all out of reporters who had the time to go through. that was great. i would love every lawmaker put up raw video so you could find it. that was very helpful. i cannot get out to illinois. there are a couple ways that, if you're an activist or if you are working on a campaign, you can have your favorite reporter that you send things to directly. do you trust the reporter to
keep your identity secret, to write it up anyway that you think is going to be fair? you can send to a group like emily's left, because they have contacts in the press. they can get it out there. you can write up your own post. go to the huffington post blog and put it up there. those are the ways to disseminate. sometimes reporters like the glory. we want to know that you send it to us first. if you put it up somewhere else first, some reporters will say it is on an activist website, going to take it? they all have their downsides. you to look at how you want to get it out there. the 40s & video is a very interesting case. initially put out the videos, grainy and blurry.
he put them up with weird names. we stumble upon them on youtube, and i didn't think they were real. some likely pursued it. he partially did that because he wanted to build up hype, build up service and ministry around it. it did work. it is tricky. you have run the risk of people not taking you seriously. you have to figure out, there are contacts who can get things to the media. if you and your community, if you're going to town halls, take along a flip cam. do video. the reporters love video.
>> in the context part it is interesting. the 40s & video, -- the 47% video, -- what i want to get into, talking about opposition research, why do you think it is important? why is it, how do you sell it? why do you justify why we need this research? >> i have a few answers for that. on the tracking case, we see things like the 47% tape. we think of that is tracking.
effect of the matter is, over the the last election cycle, we had thousands and thousands of hours of video footage. they were not all are sexy as those three instances. if you're one to build your campaign strategy around it, have your whole campaign hoping someone says something so horrible the media will take it up, you're probably going to lose. the bigger part for me is the hypocrisy. as the tea party base takes over the republican party, we really care had primaries over the last couple of election cycles. those primaries, and the things they have said to get past the primaries has been their undoing.
i'm sure there was a time where you could go to the rotary club on 17 town and tell them one thing, and then go across the town and tell another group something else. that is something you cannot do anymore. if there is anyone going back to to romney, anyone who sold american bridge better than i could, it was eric furnish him furnstrom. your guy said a lot of extreme things to win the primary. he's like, well, the voters are stupid. we can etch-a-sketch it all away. no, you cannot start clean. that is what i think is the more important thing.
finding these people who talk about cutting social security, and the day of the election, talking at the old folks home. i think that is why it is important. i think the research and the tracking together are important. if you just have the video, isn't that context. one story, our favorite george allen in his last election, he was out of town, and this is how research and tracking work together. someone stood up, a father of a son in afghanistan. he said he had to buy bought her it -- buy body armor for christmas. george allen said that is ridiculous.
he said he finally consented, i'll make sure they have the equipment. it was nice and 20. some people applauded. we got the clip. the person on our staff who put together a research document on george allen said, this does not sound right. sure enough, in 2005, during the senate debate on the budget, there are a slew of votes on body armor. george allen voted against funding for body armor. we sent it out to the washington post. george allen had a couple of bad days. we would not have that if we deny the research and the video at the same time. >> how do you keep track of vista. you do the research.
is in a vault somewhere? >> it is kind of like michael jackson owns all the sony stuff. we put together -- we have our website. a lot of our stuff is kind of in a vault for lack of a better term. a lot of these people that we track are going to run again. something that michele bachmann said during her presidential we said -- we used during her congressional run. we will do that over and over again. research and tracking are kind of innocuous until they are not greatly hold onto everything. when i get the budget, it is for more storage. did we just spend a bunch of money on storage? now there is more video.
it is a good problem to have. >> we have the flagship group during researcher. then on the other hand, we have james, you're a one-man research machine. why did you do it? what on earth would make anyone want to go through his history on your own all the time? >> i didn't have much else to do. i was unemployed. i was on a break from college because i had started doing, watching republicans talk full- time. i didn't have time for school anymore. [laughter]
i started doing it just because i enjoyed it. it was always a challenge to catch the perpetrator in the act basically. with mitt romney, it was fun. there was a lot of information already. the opposition research from the mccain campaign had been posted online. my challenge was the video was out of the way he was keeping of what was going on every day. i pretty much seen everything he had done on video to that point. i started doing the nonvideo stuff, and digging into those backgrounds. my goal was to find things that the mccain team didn't have. then, once i did, i would send it out to people in the press
that i knew were interested in different topics or whatever. it was really just a challenge to myself that kept me going. >> that is a good answer. >> we all say things. -- we all say thanks. >> with this information coming in, how do you decide what to emphasize question mark what to tweet out to your many fans? the video is out there. the researchers out there. that is not the whole project. >> there is so much out there. they give you so much. now that we have the american bridge, we have people all over the country you understand the technology and are able to capture it, and know what to do with it. there is a lot to work with.
i think windows you have to let stuff go. there is too much going on. we ought to teach gender roles traditionally to elementary school kids, and i'm probably going to do something with that because he gets in with the larger narrative on the war on women and when to roll back the clock. if that larger narrative weren't happening, i might let that go in favor of something that fed into whatever the zeitgeist was. i think the stuff is the most effective when we can couch it in terms of the parties brand. it was one of the first caught on video moments. it did some work exposing george allen's racism. it didn't explode all over the republican party like todd akin
did. the aiken stuff was so important because they were trying to legislate what he had said. he was in an outlier. yet cosponsored legislation to differentiate between types of rape rape when he said that, it was not a crackpot who should be allowed to talk anymore. it was the agenda of the party. that is why everyone got in trouble. 47% is will republicans -- is what republicans think. that is what i go for. things are infuriating, and i can semi-whole day getting outraged, but i try to go for the stuff that is not just an outrageous comment. it is exposing an actual legislative agenda. that is the stuff that is really terrifying. it is fun to make fun of them for being out of touch, but it is more important to make sure that voters know what they want to do in office to you and your
bodies, enter worklife. >> is it a to make that connection? two connect actual legislation? >> sadly, no. it is really easy. there are a million pieces of legislation. anytime someone talks a woman working outside the home, or set it -- or how sad it is, these are spokes people full -- or making sure that women do not make as much as men do. that is the easy comparison to make. i cannot believe they have this many pieces of legislation to redefine break, but they do. it exposes something within the party. >> writing about politics as you do so well, do you decide what you want to write about? you talk about what you look
for, but is there an overload on how many of these kinds of moments? >> the "huffington post" can never have enough videos of politicians saying something crazy. there is an endless appetite. people love the videos. we love those. people love them. some are very disposable. there are many of these moments over the past campaign seasons we will never remember. they were popular for an hour. they didn't rise to the todd akin, 47%. talking, figuring out what to write about, if it is paired
with good research, that is great. there are videos that cannot stand by themselves. you may think it is outrageous, i do not character. if you sent a reporter and say this contradicts what george allen said last year, here is a link to it, that is great. i will increase the chance that i will write that. that becomes a story. it becomes something related to policy. it is better if it is something that is happening currently in the senate or in congress. body armor, that is not something i'm really covering right now. if it is having that the senate has been debating, that would be fantastic. it gives you the extra hook. sometimes you may want to hold until you think that the senate will be taking it up. lets hold and send it to
whatever outlet and one we pray that could be smarter. getting the timing right can be very smart. save for a rainy day. when it is use molly, a can be effective. i do not like when a group will send me someone talking with immigration. immigration is big right now. here is what my opponent said about immigration tenures go. and you send me a file. i'm not going to write about it. it is not a story. you need to give the reporter an actual narrative, an actual story. use apple research smartly. that is all. >> this has to do with what we
do for a living. i am always perplexed, and i'm sure others are, the videos that completely blow up and videos that fall flat or do not get the traction you think it would. do you have any sort of -- how do you gauge reading something? do you have a sauce over the that helps you blow things up? what do you think make something pop? >> that is the great thing about a lot of these videos. for a while, the videos were someone follows a candidate, and you back to them with questions until he say something, those were popular for a while. that time is past. just getting candidates and using their own words has become
a lot more effective. they cannot deny what they said. they have the whole speech there. if someone says and that is clearly false, that is different than what they are telling audiences, things that are offensive, those will always do well. they're always going to be a market for them. it is those videos in between that can be tougher. i think this is bad, or talking about a local issue that you were worked up about we are not. that is where those videos that are on the line, where you needed research or some sort of near two to pull the reporter in. >> a question for james, what advice or takeaways did the two of you have for folks who are
running their own campaigns out there, or who want to incorporate research and tracking at a state level or local level? things people can do, tools they can use. i have to imagine there are some pieces of wisdom from someone who knows this as well as anybody. >> i'm actually available for opposition research work for campaigns. [laughter] my twitter is a good way to get in touch with me. that is my advice. [laughter] >> i endorse james.
a lot of what we do is timing an opportunity. at the same point, it is about preparation. if you're going to have a -- i have always thought that research is the building block of your campaign. i understand there are campaigns that are wealthier, and some struggling for money. everything from your earned media to your paid media, to the mail you're going to do, to your narrative, you want to go after your opponent on education issues, but yet there is no research that shows that he has done anything wrong. i think investing early in your research and your opposition research is extremely important. it is the building block for the campaign. the same thing about the tracking.
if you're one to track, then it shouldn't just be -- i apologize it should just be the intern tracking when he is not doing whatever else that they are doing is an intern. it should be a dedicated tracker. because you never know. it's all innocuous until it's not and you actually need it. those would be my tips. at least on getting started. >> emily's list does not do its own in-house tracking. but as someone who this kind of stuff actually plays -- the american bridge mailer plays an important part in the job you do. who areyou say to folks
in similar positions, small opposition or campaign? >> the second part of that is what happens once it breaks? we need to be careful as partisan organizations not to , an a legitimate substance political story into a political football. step back and allow your opponents quietly hang themselves and you don't have anything to do with it. when the todd akin thing broken -- when the todd akin thing broke, and you will find voters will be outraged about it you are not hardy committees and possibly not even the candidate you're working for. you put out a statement saying it's terrible and he should never have said it. ask is ad-so says better story than democratic candidate ounces on so-and-so for saying ask. there's a tendency in our world
to get super excited there is a tendency in our world to get super excited when we find this stuff, and we go, yes, but do this now. i caution -- caution. watch, see where things go. see what things ought to be nudged in. do not estimate -- do not underestimate the power of sitting back and letting things play out. whenve seen a couple times folks have jumped the gun on these moments. this was not a video, but i am thinking of out the romney conference where he so clearly thoughts he had the vital, deathknell, he was done. he was terrible. all disheveled, smirking the whole time. it was way too early. he turned a very substantive issue everyone was paying attention to into political theater, which turned off anybody who might have been predisposed to be on his side
even. there was a rush in our world -- because we are political people in that is what we do. it makes sense to lean back and see where things go. also, sometimes tapes are wrong. tapes are edited. tapes are doctored. tapes that are not coming from credible sources like my fellow panelists. then you end up with the shirley sherrod situation. >> one more question. so start thinking. the research -- and really the tracking world seems to be changing now that everyone can take video on the iphone. a bartender at a private fundraiser can capture the republican presidential nominee. how is this changing the approach to all of this, this whole world, when anybody can -- >> everything is on the record
now. >> i'm going to start with amanda. thoughts?ter -- your >> i think it is great. there is so much out there that never gets covered just because there aren't enough reporters or there aren't enough trackers or what ever there is. but there are people at these events. local council meetings, a townhall for a congressman, a meet and greets. it is all on the record now. there is a lot that goes on at the local level. different messages than the national level. i think it is great. it is harder, i guess, for politicians. citizen journalism. meet a lot of this sense to by readers. maybe i was watching my local
news and sought an interview with the candidate. they just send it to me. that is great. i cannot watch every news station. i remember there was a gop primary debate and all the candidates were asked what the federal minimum wage was. one of them was a sitting congressman. none of them knew. which was ridiculous. someone flagged that for me. i would not have seen it otherwise. i think it is fantastic that there are more out there. also, yes, candidates are cracking down. they say, you cannot bring your phones in. you cannot bring your cameras and. that is bad and we should west and why they are doing that, but it is fantastic that there is more access. romney-ching the mitt barack obama debate, but what i cannot see is what is going on at the ground level. and many times that is what we are most interested in.
theverything being on record -- this also plays a really important role in grooming candidates, finding good candidates. is it a good thing? does it make your life more miserable? >> it is a good thing. you have to have message discipline, but it has to come from a truthful place. you cannot come in and recites talking points you do not believe and leave the townhall and be the jerk you are in real life anymore to go someone will tweak that you were rude to a waiter and they saw it or they will tweet your testy exchange with a voter. it will improve candidate quality. you have to have people who live the stuff that they preach. which i think is good for democracy, good for america. yes, i do spend more times with
candidates the king sure that they know there are no unguarded -- making sure that they know there are no unguarded moments anymore. there are some things you do not want tapes because they are yours, they are personal. that is bad because you lose those moments. but then you say what you believe and then you are going to be consistent. >> on the record, everyone is a tracker. the world we live in? >> that is what created my job for me basically. there is so much video out there that there is almost not enough people to watch at all. so, what was one of the most interesting things to me was i never considered before this process that me, not having an
actual job with an organization that does this kind of thing, could be sitting at home and watching videos on youtube and catch something no one had been before. -- no one had seen before. i was able to do that several times. it became less surprising every time, i ess. there is so much stuff out there. people why amanda needs to send your videos. she can't watch it all. us.her can the rest of there is too much for almost any of us to watch. the more eyes we get on its -- it's not just the camera lens. the camera has to be on it first, but there has to be eyes to watch it later to find the things in it. i think the more people, the more cameras, the more eyes involved with the process, the better it is for everything. >> i think the idea, and not just the idea but what is happening with citizen trackers is extremely important.
i look at it also from the sense of the media's role in this. abouts the great thing sufferance -- jess being on emily's list now or any of the work that we do with american bridge. when i started work with american bridge, if you did not get someone at the times or the associated press to write your story -- it was very much a trickle-down sort of thing. if you did not get a major news organization to run your story, your story was never going to get hurt. -- never going to get heard. it is no longer hear down. it is circular. matter not particularly
where your story starts. if it is a good story, it is going to make its way around. i think that is great. >> i want to jump on that really quickly. i know we are looking at local newspapers and blogs all day long for really good stories that have not gotten up to the national level, give the local outlets a lot of press. but local outlets are seeing things that we are not. if you get it in the local press or the local log, it will rise up. we may write that if it has not been picked up everywhere nationally yet. at the same time, you can get something in a national outlet -- maybe your state outlet has an interest in it. for us, if we are interested in it, we will publish. they will say, the huffington post or whichever outlet shows national interest in what our local congressman is saying and then the state and local press will cover it.
so, yes, it is very, very circular now. >> great. we will open it up for questions. this gentleman here has had his hand up for a long time. we have a microphone -- please wait to ask your west and -- your question. >> is this being recd? [laughter] >> you are live, saturday night. >> exactly. a lot of this is about tracking candidates. but what about taking the same techniques and using this to track other types of april? are there any efforts going on to do that so that when the candidates are expecting these things -- what about other types of people? maybe the corporation heads who are driving a lot of these things? i have trained a group of senior citizens in florida to ask the questions of the head of
a restaurant chain about paid sick leave and using those kinds of videos to illustrate an issue that is very importance. -- very important. i appreciate what amanda says, which is we did not start off waiting for something. i actually designed a narrative i wanted to get and i went out and sent the senior citizens out there to ask the kind of questions that would elicit a response. ofthere any of that kind action about the tracking, recording, and pushing up the narrative that you know is going on in issues and/or focusing on corporate heads versus candidates? >> i will start off. on the issues peace, yes, but it is shrouded in politics. like the nra convention or a
tea party convention where you have politicians but then you have people in the movement. we have tracked things like that. what we have found -- i am all for it. the one thing we have found that has been kind of a pain is -- at least with politicians -- they have public schedules. so, we kind of have an idea where they're going to be and when they are owing to be. and it comes to corporation heads, they just don't have it unless you know that they are having a public event. as they do not have nearly many. notve heard a story, it's my story. i think it was -- they were doing something. they were doing this koch brothers documentary. and they went up to one of the koch brothers' many houses. they knocked on the door.
i am not going to call them a butler. someone who worked at that house came up and they said, they were here to do this stuff and whatever. they close the door. then a couple seconds later someone much bigger came out and said "you have to leave now." within 20 minutes of that happening, every single one of the koch brothers' houses had been alerted and were at defcon 5. it is harder with "private citizens." but they do have the kind of fame and no variety that, in my mind, would allow them to be tracked. but it is logistically problematic. >> i think where you have been seeing a lot on issues -- and this is still talking about politicians -- gun control.
during recess, they had people go to these local town halls. senator kelly was probably the most publicized one. families of gun violence victims confronted the senators about why they did not vote for background checks. they also had these families write letters to the senators and ask them, did they want to sit down and talk about background checks over dinner, come over to their house? none of the senators took them up on it. the kelly story got publicized widely nationally. they were also publicized in the state press. i think in many ways, they were most happy about getting that state press. they were on the front page of the arizona republic, having that town, and having people push back and the confronted. they have the national stories tying everything together.
areink that is where you seeing a lot of this sort of on issue-based advocacy. >> really quick, i wrote a story last fall. but romney ran some stories on welfare, that president obama was gutting the work to welfare requirements. and affiliates that does research -- an affiliate that does research not on candidates, but on think tank types, the quasi-academic source which was in the news and going all over the place, basically the biggest poverty denier conservative academic in america. which i thought it was a good story. it was useful because it was going at the source of the information. if you have a campaign and the
other side is putting out some information, it is good to get some information on where it is coming from. i quoted people who said "we do not trust this guy's research at all." maybe that is another side of it. next question? >> over the past 10 years or so, how has tracking and opposition research changed with regards to tracking and disseminating its? i mean, 10 years ago we did not
have anything even approaching what we do now. there would be discussions from people on the ground. they would radio in. i remember people holding their cell phones up while we gathered around the landline to listen to what -- [laughter] was coming in through the cell phone and that was more or less tracking. they were not accepted at all, so, you could not go in to a partisan rally. they would throw you out. today that would be a story. if we were not allowed to videotape a public event by republican congressman or candidate, that an -- that in and of itself would be a story. five or 10 years ago, there was this lock and tackle dance. your biggest staffer would stand in front the dude with the camera. it was silly. do not say anything that terrible or hypocritical and you will be just fine. it's a people a long time to figure out.
they had people rough up trackers or be rude to them and then the media would jump on it and everybody would be wondering what are they hiding before this became part of daily campaign life area the last cycle that i work for candidates and not an organization,, we became quite friendly with our tracker. he was a decent guy. he worked for the wrong team as far as i was concerned, but we totally like tim. you expected to see him there. he became part of the campaign team. that was all will because he trusted us, more or less, and if we told him we had no more events that day, he would go home. he was not very good. [laughter] but really, that has evolved a lot, is what i'm saying. that is something that we all understand is part of the process.
flex -- >> on the tracking of course, i think it is definitely the technology. people remember 2006. even before that, there were a couple trackers in 2004. now everyone has the technology to do it. everyone has the technology to receive it. on the research, and i am pretty sure one of the godfathers of opposition research, michael gurkey -- oh, he is there. he has been saying since 2004, research is not a static thing. someone would do a research book and it would sit on a shelf. wehink at american bridge, are forever updating these research books because there's always something new. i think that is one of the bigger innovations and research. it is a constant updating of
the research. it is not a static, you know, book. i think that has been helpful. >> more questions? gentleman in the front in the blue polo shirt. >> a couple years ago in alaska, the tea party senate candidate, joe miller, had just questioned whether the unemployment insurance was authorized by the founding fathers. the day after a reporter from the alaska dispatch, which had dispatched him with the story, shows up at a miller event and he is promptly detained by the miller securities service and had to be liberated by the anchorage police. in a way, i suppose progressive people get sensitive.
they sometimes say things they should not and so on. i would be interested, based on what you have learned from the opposition, what advice you give to candidates on the progressive side, particularly how to handle trackers, how to handle your words, and how to prevent this sort of outlook meltdown we have seen with miller, murdoch, and a can -- akin? >> i do not think we have the same distrust of the press that they have on the republican side. that would never happen with the democratic -- it just wouldn't. i can't think of a time or a candidate who would detain or assault a reporter -- i mean, that's -- right? scrawny is usually some 22-year-old who was also the driver. there is no idea that we need to keep everybody protected. i think our job is easier, i think, than theirs.
we are the pro-information people. that means we are less scared of there being information. >> the advice i would have is believe what you say and don't believe crazy things. [laughter] >> the red shirt right here, third row. >> you said the youtube and all of the various video allows people to the caught being rude to waiters. i happen to be from new jersey. and being rude to waiters would be posted by the government's own people. [laughter] i would just look to your comments as to how this can create a cult of personality as well? >> you have a special case.
i do not know anyone who is as lauded for being a horrendous bully as your governor. it's like larry david proportions of social issues. another think of politician who does what christie does in terms of the evening rude and obnoxious and generally taking on people in sexist ways -- theycan think of to, but are no longer congressman. joe walsh and allen west. >> why is christie better at it? >> because it is new jersey. i can say that. i'm from new jersey. there are certain places in the country, iowa being one of them, i think that that would become grating. i think people on the east
coast have a thicker skin about some of these sorts of things. this is just my personal opinion based on pending time in other parts of the country. there are places where that plays. if i -- i think if he were to do the iowa caucuses and call someone up on stage and degraded them the way he does in new jersey, i do not think he would go that far. >> there are instances with joe walsh and allen west -- if the media put up a clip of joe walsh or allen west saying something silly, their opponents would be really happy. reallyy would also be happy because it allows them to say, look, the mainstream media is all against me. and it does sometimes get the
base riled up. they can fund raise off of that. they are considered conservative heroes taking down the lame stream media. it could benefit your opponent as well. in the media, if people are sharing your story, it is fine and you do not care who is sending it out as long as people are posting it. [laughter] >> over here. >> at the top. we need you on mic, sorry. >> i do research for credo. this is a process question. we have done all video all the time. i wonder if there is room anymore for the traditional, nuanced, process to actually get that said? as an example, it took quite a while, we had this piece around kagan where he was taking his family on junkets to europe, feeding his family for hundreds of thousands of dollars and it
got no play. i am mystified about that. any comments? >> well -- >> i think that's, first of all, i'm a very big proponent of the long-term research stories. i think there are a couple things. one is reporters, as i mentioned before, there are not a lot of investigative reporters. that is first. reporters want small, bite sized content. and then from a tactical standpoint when i wake up in the morning, especially when you are in an election cycle, i just want to make sure the opponents, who ever it is, is having a bad day. if it is a small thing, it is a small day. and small things can become big
things. we tried very hard to place larger stories, and i think we talked about this before. allpe we never sent you opposition book and said, here, publish this. if we did, i apologize. the idea is, we will send out a press release or bullets, and we will have the greatest quote, be witty, pithy, and the chance is it will not get as much pick up as if our extremely creative video team creates something. people like watching video. i am with you on that. there are great investigative stories that are written. i do not think you see as many, especially on the local level, because those teams are the first positions that are cut in
newsrooms. >> there's definitely a place for those. that is one of the reasons that i like working at huffington post. pieces,ose little bite but there was a piece that we did that shockingly did really well and people were very interested in its. there are often times when stories like that are picked up. if you pitch that to me, as a reporter, i am going to look at that, is that a candidate or a lawmaker i'm interested in? is this an issue that i am following? if it is something about a candidate and there is a history of corruption or history of drunk driving charges, something like that, i tend not to be as interested in those. if it is something where he is, i don't know, railing against subsidizing food stamps but he is getting all of these government subsidies, a clear place -- a clear case of hypocrisy.
it's very subjective. a lot of it is finding out who is the right reporter to pick it up. it definitely is harder. you have to find that right order. it was very interested -- i was very interested in covering wisconsin stuff. if you sent something to me, i probably would have written it, just because i was interested and covering wisconsin. these are very gratifying stories. dive deep. and you feel like you have gotten something when you read it. you feel like you are eating your old rather than taking the can -- the candy. please keep pitching those sorts of things. those are great. reporter time is limited. you just have to find the right thing. >> one or two more?
this lady right here. >> i think one of the things that does not get talked about a lot on the 47% video is it broke on a liberal outlets. in go back and forth politics. if you break it in an outlet, you get to talk the frame you want versus a more traditional outlet that may get more eyeballs. can you talk about that tension and advice for those who do this kind of work? >> in that specific instance, the reason why i gave it to david koran is because the part of the video i saw was about chinese sweatshops and i worked with him on that before. at the 47% part was a bonus. that was great. yes, but it wasn't -- i did not have the 47% tape and decide to
break it on "mother jones." one more piece of advice i would have about something like that -- reporters have things they are interested in. amanda was doing wisconsin for a while. i know that her blog is a great place to send things about lgbt things. every reporter has stories they like to do. so, having relationships with reporters like that is important and choosing the one that you think would be most likely to do it. also, he if you get a relationship like amanda at the huffington post and are not interested in it, but you know someone at the huffington post is, you can go through amanda, i assume. you have someone that covers
whatever it is, will you send it to them? and i think getting it referred from another reporter gets you more a chance of it being taken seriously and looked at. onspeaking to the breaking progressive or left leaning media outlets versus a traditional media outlet, it is more about how the piece is written and getting the story right the first time rather than getting it under the new york times masthead. which is new. years ago, if it was not on the wall street journal or ap, it would not be considered legitimate. andstories were stories they were great and they were really well written. firstthink having that piece be perfectly done means it's going to have a greater reach than having the masthead
be the biggest and most, you know, very down the middle. but progressive -- progressive leaning -- i don't even know how to say this. they are not partisan allies at all. call is no chance i could up someone at mother jones or huffpo and get them to kill a story that would be bad for democrats. they would be mad at me. the journalism is absolutely solid and not slanted at all and i think that is understood and expect it by other journalists to work at outlets who do not have that reputation. so they are happy to read those stories and know they are well thought out and well done. aso not see that as being much of an issue as it would have been a few years ago. >> if something is in your local or state blog and i see it, it does not mean i will not pick it up.
if there is a full video, that helps, rather than a 15 second clip that looks to produce. what helps is if you send me a link. what often happens is i will re-report it. it is fine getting things on the smaller outlets where it might be easier. just know that if you send it to a reporter, they may be a little more skeptical and take more time to check to see if it is accurate. at >> one more probably. >> [indiscernible] >> this lady in the front in the purple. >> my question is about the next level down. i think it is clear that the things like 47% were legitimate
rape have the power to affect votes. sketch,ngs like etch-a- things that are not from some in turn, but not from the candidates themselves. obviously we got a great kick of etch-a-sketch and things like that. but i wonder is that something that is great for those who like the inside baseball kind of stuff or do the kind of surrogate next level down from the candidate, to their comments actually have the ability to make much of a dent in things? >> i think it depends on who the surrogate is. foster freeze goes on television and says back in his day the idea of birth control is putting aspirin between a girl's needs. people are going to pick that up.
thesewith a lot of things, it is death by a thousand cuts. we were talking about this before. there are so many we have forgotten. we put together so many videos. the ones we're talking about our akin, the 47%, because those were the ones that resonated. but there are things that came before the 47% on mitt romney. everything from when he was asked about -- he said he made $370,000 in speaking fees and called that not a lot of money. "i like to fire people." "i'm unemployed right now" -- ha ha ha. it is like the death of 1000 cuts. there were a lot of people that were like, i bet mid romney would say something that. it was already in their minds. i think they are important. i do not think there is one
killer ah-ha video. you have to keep going and going and going until you get to the point where people will believe when something big comes on. >> this is a nod to the credo folks. joe walsh -- i wrote up some of these videos and the only one that really comes to mind was him questioning tammy duckworth, a double amputee war now right questioning her time in the military. it was pretty egregious. every time he went up, he was saying something. it was almost like he was doing
it on purpose. like, look at me. orm going to one up myself something. ant just felt like accumulation of things. it accumulated and snowball to the point where you got the sense -- you are heard from people like this guy. the whole thing was, what is going on? what is wrong with this guy? there was not one big bang moment. >> if it is a staffer or surrogate, it has to be part of a larger narrative. i had never heard of foster fries when he said that, but it was so perfect and then it became a big thing. that ann romney had not worked a day in her life comment -- they tried so hard to turn that into a thing. there was no narrative about democrats belittling work at home. so it did not do anything except become a temple instead of a dense.
if it is something like etch-a- sketch, if you are already thinking, dude likes to revise his history, and it has to be the chief strategist. someone in the room. and that guy says that. and you know he has been in strategy sessions. it does matter. it still helps. >> ok, we will stop with that. thank you for the questions, everyone. we really appreciate it. [applause] have a good day. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> president barack obama announced the plan today to implement what he calls smarter
government programs that deliver better government services at lower taxpayer expense. he is casting his budget director to lead the effort. here's a portion of that announcement today. you can see the entire announcement on >> last year ask congress for the authority to reorganize and consolidate the federal bureaucracy. we are doing a lot of this work administratively, but unfortunately, there are still a bunch of rules, a lot of legislation, that has poorly designed some of our agencies enforce the spokes to engage in ,ureaucratic hoop jumping instead of just going ahead and focusing on a mission and delivering good service to our citizens. let's clean this up, let's consolidate. almost every president from herbert hoover to ronald reagan
had this authority to redesign the federal government, the executive branch, to deliver services better. just like every business owner seeks to make sure that his or her company keeps pace with the times. currently, we do not have that capacity. so i am going to keep on doing what we can administratively, but we sure could use congress's help, particularly at a time when congress is saying we want more help to give lip service and we are operating under severe fiscal constraints. it makes sense for us to be able to redesign the government so that it can deliver on the functions the american people are looking for. we should all want a government that is smarter, quicker, and more responsive to the needs of the american people. >> the u.s. house has returned from a week-long fourth of july break. earlier they met for short speeches.
that will consider three bills dealing with corporate accounting and banking reserves. federalese subsidize student loans. what's the house debate live here on c-span. looking at the- current medicaid system and considers ideas for possible changes. see the hearing live on c-span3 at four o'clock eastern. obama's picked to head the fbi gorse -- goes before the senate judiciary committee. >> five years from now think we are still going to be looking at a world that is dominated by the traditional pay tv packages. people have waited for years to see the pay tv package blow apart. it is starting to happen. you are starting to see corrosion around the edges, not
for some psychic change in the business model or technology, but for the leakage of people out of the system at a slow but accumulating rate. over 10 years that will be a very large audience that the programmers and the entertainment industry will have to address and serve. >> we are trying to set up an opportunity for broadcasters to rights ifme of their they choose to, to move to different part of the spectrum, and in return get a part of the auction proceeds as we rearrange the spectrum, to around and sell it to the wireless companies for flexible use, which could be mobile broadband. >> more of what is happening in the cable industry conditions and will cable show. .onight at 8 eastern on c-span2 >> a look now at the online progressive groups agenda.
we talked on "washington journal with the new executive director. >> we are joined from denver becamena galland, who the new executive director of it describes itself as a community of over 8 million americans who use online tools to participate in the democratic process. how does one become executive director? they so much for having me. how one becomes executive director, in my case, was to be involved in social change for over 10 years. i got my start organizing in the first time i encountered move on was that a rally calling for the war in iraq not to even
begin. there were about a thousand people gathered in rhode island and i had been organizing, calling out for nonviolent alternatives. i was amazed to see this crowd. i did not know where they had come fronm. i first got acquainted with them organized in 2004 and 2006 and i have been with move on ever since. i helped launch the open petition site that we offer to our membership we should can see by going to you can qualify for support from our members around the country. host: what changes are you making as the new executive
director? , iteople know moveon started in 1998 as one of the first online petitions. to censure congress and move on to the point where people may remember president clinton was facing impeachment proceedings. there was a couple in california that of the country had been distracted for far too long from the important business we needed to attend to. in a couple of weeks they had hundreds of thousands of signers. was really the first on-line petition. since then we have done tremendous work to get people around the country engaged in our democracy, which is so vital, ranging from organizing to oppose the iraq war, to organize to task progressive
health reform, to sporting president obama at a key point in the 2008 primaries. i've been excited to open up our toolset so members can run their own campaigns. moveon has always had incredible campaigns. we are leaning into the billions and creativity of our own membership. we have had members start their own campaigns and petitions. let me give you a quick example. a member named robert applebaum is a thoughtful guy who has been concerned about the problem of student loan debt in this country. this is a trillion dollar question. students cannot get a good job
and they are underwater from the moment they walk out of college. robert started a petition in 2011. at that time, student loan debt was not even on the radar. it wasn't a signature national issue. robert started this petition and it went gangbusters. thisdent obama cited petition when he made an executive order. since then, we have leaned into this campaign. we bring in the strategic resources to help to keep this campaign going. withembers are standing senator elizabeth warren to make sure that student loan rates would not double on july 1. that moment came in went.
our members have been standing with senator warren. there was a special briefing call. thousands of members were out, some and their caps and gowns rallying publicly around the country for congress to do something. ofs is an inspiring moment organizing around the country and making sure they see the change they want to see in this country. it started with a petition at it sprung into national
prominence at that moment. people can start their own campaign at anna we are talking with galland, the executive director of our phone lines are open. democrats, 202-585-3880. republicans, 202-585-3881. independents, 202-585-3882. outside the u.s., 202-585-3883. a question from jewelrymakerj. guest: sure. moveon is a nonprofit. we have a federally registered political action committee and social welfare organization.
our average donation is about $27. fromgives us independence political parties. host: you talk about what your members care about. did moveon work for president obama? guest: yes. host: talk about the current relationship. this is a headline from cnn. talk about your relationship with president obama, especially in wake of the nsa revelations. guest: members are probably independent and progressive and
are concerned about issues. is important we stay independent from any party or individual. we look for leadership from then and we support them when they take a stand on an issue that our members care about. president obama was speaking out passionately for the need for us to take action in the wake of newtown or in the discussion about the migration reform. he said he wants to see a pathway to citizenship for those living in the shadows. our members support the president in moments like that. or he says things that are members do not agree with -- president obama introduced a budget that did not go anywhere but did include cuts to social
security. it would change the way inflation were measured. thatrs strongly opposed proposal. seriestners organized a of actions including a big rally in d.c., backed up by hundreds of thousands of moveon members. our members have a great deal of respect for the president. when he stands up on progressive values, they are right there with him. when he takes positions he disagrees with, they let them know that as well. host: what about the reactions to nsa surveillance programs? guest: we have seen a great deal of attention about this blanket vacuuming up of information from americans.
coalition joined a called stop watching us and other organizations that are calling for the hatred act to bereforms, for there to accountability for elected officials that have supported this program. act.e patriot members are questioning whether this kind of surveillance approach is necessary to keep us safe or healthy for our democracy. organizing is starting to bubble up. moveon is a powerful community of 8 million progressives. anyone can go to and start a petition.
i think the surveillance issue is one in which we are eager to see what is bubbling up from progressives around the country. host: would you disagree with this tweet from laura? guest: thank you, laura. i would encourage her to go to our site and start a petition. we can only do what our members want us to do. thate heard concern on issue and i would encourage her to start her campaign. host: robert from fenton, maryland. you are on with anna galland. caller: can you hear me ok? good morning. what it be possible for moveon to start a petition to get
people in congress moving? made is no progress being on anything. there's the republican dislike for the president. we saw the loan debt double. any legislation that would help the people that need help in this country. is there anything that can be done by moveon? and just disrupt congress? they are bringing the country down. i cannot believe these people are calling themselves patriots. they are worse than the taliban. fort: thank you so much your question and you're concerned. thank you for paying attention to what is happening in congress. i would encourage you to go to moveon.
it sounds like you are calling for occupy congress. in north carolina, folks may know there has been a movement called moral mondays. week have been protesters after week after week at the state capitol. folks have been getting arrested. students reverends, from duke university and other universities. this is coming out so strongly. the state legislature has taken a hard right turn. they are passing draconian budgets. they have gone to the extreme, extreme right. what you are seeing is an effective protest movement. ar members will deliver
petition to the governor in north carolina. that is an example of the kind of organizing that direct action that gets at what you are asking about. whether the same thing should be happening in congress, it is up to our members to make that happen. host: richard is from massachusetts. good morning. caller: good morning. nice talking to you. i want to talk about barack obama. to me, he's not a real progressive. when he first got in in the spring of 2009, he did two things. there was the message after meeting with tim geithner, "there will not be indictments."
he listened to petraeus. he escalated the war. he did the same thing that richard nixon did in 1968. he carried along the war for another six or seven years. he is not really a progressive. that is just my feeling about him. guest: thank you for sharing that. inis important to speak up moments where our elected officials are not doing what they need to do. country, around the people are speaking up. anial security, we saw organized outcry.
it is on all of us to speak our truth. go to and connect with other progressives that feel the way that you can do to help you to raise that voice. another example that i think is inspiring -- in texas, there has been a showdown in the state legislature. the texas state legislature decided it was going to ram through it essentially a strong anti-abortion bill that would have closed all of the clinics in texas that provide abortion services. americans believe multiple things about abortions. most do not favor an outright ban. the texas state legislature had
to call a special session. they were trying to ram it right through. a citizens movement spoke out strongly was at the state capitol and what you saw was the emergence of an incredible leader in wendy davis, who stood up and said, "no, i am not going to let this happen." she filibustered for 10 hours. this was a real filibuster. she helped to defeat the bill, temporarily at least, and ignite a real movement not just in texas but around the country. moveon members said to us they would give a quarter of a million dollars.
"we want to support her run because she has inspired us." there is a tale of real leadership and that can change the course of history. on all the issues that we care about, it is so important that people take action and start a petition and talk to their neighbors and go on facebook and get educated and speak out and go to rallies. there are so many things we can do even when we disagree with our elected officials. that is what moveon is about. we want to help you make that progressive change. host: texas governor rick perry was talking about what is happening now on that issue.
[video clip] >> someone wants to go with a national bill or an amendment, that is their right. in texas, we are going to support protecting life. we will stand up and say that after 20 weeks, we are going to make sure these health clinics are safe and under the safety standards that any other surgical facility would be under. and that doctors have procedures in place so they can look after someone if that procedure goes bad. those are common sense approaches. this is going to pass. i am pretty good at counting votes and i think support is overwhelming in the house and senate and we will get this done and get texas focused on the
economic interests that are going on and creating jobs. host: governor perry said he thinks the bill is going to pass in this special session of the texas legislature. what is moveon continuing to do on this issue? guest: i think he had not reckoned with the people's will in the state of texas. as the filibuster began grabbing the attention of people around the country, a member named stephanie in texas started a petition on our site that overnight had something like 15,000 signers, calling for the legislature to back off of this extreme position that they have taken.
our members are organizing to stop it. there was a huge rally in austin. people are coming from around the state. we had a plane banner flying overhead. people want to see real democracy take its course in texas. moveon members have committed to support wendy davis in her work. we will do what we can during this next special session to make sure the right thing happens. host: roger is from phoenix. you are on with ms. galland. caller: good morning.
my question goes a little bit off base to the one i talked to the screener about. i did live in denver back in the 1960's. it was a place where an independent could live and get along and it was a pretty nice place. the cultural revolution spanned out across the country. a few years after, i was back in denver and it was a changed town because of the cultural revolution. the movement hit hard and heavy. there was a movement in boulder to basically organize to spit on our vietnam veterans, and they are still doing it.
i just wonder if you could condone this kind of action. host: give you a chance to jump in. guest: i am in denver today. members come from all walks of life and i think they would share a respect for the military. we saw the deaths of 19 firefighters fighting a terrible wildfire out here. --veon members and folks had a have a deep respect for people who respect our country in all sorts of ways, whether it is a broad or in domestic situations like the forest fires. this is a country -- i want to emphasize the commonalities we have. i am a mom of two young girls.
i want them to grow up in a country of respect, and that is possible if we work together. we need progressive, common sense, american values. it is what we all stand for on the fourth of july. i think everyone would agree american values are shared. we all stand together for many things. you can fight for those things together. host: how old is the progressive movement? people think it is a new movement. guest: that is a good question. he probably has a better answer than i do. it seems at least it's as old as the founding of the united states and probably over. anyone who has fought for
women's rights and equality is a proud progressive. those of us in our 20's and are the latecomers to a long tradition in america for fighting for an environment that will be preserved, workers' rights, fighting for a country where anyone can make it. not having to scrape and scrap to get by. those are progressive values. all of us should be thankful they had been present in our-- student loans interest rates doubled last week. we see boehner on the steps of talking about what
lawmakers are doing to reverse the increase. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> good afternoon. today marks one week since the senate has taken action to protect duden's all across this country -- to protect students all across this country. although democrats know that on july 1 many student loans would double, they have been more involved in bickering than
addressing the issues. the students striving us today are suffering because of it. one example is a gal from eastern washington who is working at a local much toddled strikethrough in eastern washington to help pay for rising tuition at washington state university. and she heard her federal loans made be doubling, she is an aspiring columnist, she is not sure she will be able to finish school. unfortunately, that is repeated among many students across the country. the first in my family to graduate from college and graduate school, and still paying off those ones myself, and i can tell you firsthand how difficult it is at times to pay those tuition rates. it is not fair for democrats who run washington to stand in these students' way.
about 20 million students are in college every year, and 60% of them have to take out student loans. when senate majority leader harry reid says he is not looking for a compromise, i would encourage him to think about haley, think about these college students, think about the millions others across the country. as members of congress we are here to make life easier for students that want to go to college, one to get an education, what to find a job, and instead we see the opposite. we see fighting internally instead of passing a solution. i urge them to act quickly to , nottudents first washington politics. >> republicans have acted to stop student loans'interest rates from doubling and make college more affordable, including these students
behind me. democrats have left these students down. they deserve better. it is time for the president to lead, time for him to bring senate democrat eaters together and develop a solution. that house has done its job. it is time for the senate and white house to do its job. if you look at what the house passed, it is close to what the president offered earlier this year. failure to lead on student loans is part of the president's larger issue, and that is the failure to lead on the against issues facing our country. jobs and the economy. every american deserves that are than this new normal of slow economic growth, not enough jobs, and no increase in wages. i want to be direct. the house has acted to stop the rate from being doubled. the senate has failed to act.
now the rate has doubled. students across america get hurt. i do not care about republicans and democrats. we have asked harry reid to take action. do not stop building for a compromise. america is looking for him. do not punished them for his inaction. >> my colleagues have pointed out the problem. july 1 is behind us now. the interest rates on subsidized stafford student loans doubled. the house passed legislation to keep that from happening. to tie student loan interest rates to the market, to the 10- year treasury, to make a solution to get politicians out of the business of setting the interest rate every election year. the white house has proposed a similar solution, a bipartisan group of senators in the senate have proposed a similar solution, and yet there is no
action from the senate adjourned the leader. it is time for says democrats -- r senate democrats to give the students the relief they need. >> i will take a couple of questions. critical of the president, harry lead, on taking action. what makes you think in your statement today, earlier this morning, that they would be able to come together based under criticisms of how they have addressed these issues? >> the house has done its job, and the fact is students will pay the price, and when they see the interest rates on their loans doubling. when you have a bipartisan group in the senate who had a solution that was not far off from our solution, and yet was shot down by the majority leader, you ther theywonder whe
are looking for a solution. >> [indiscernible] do you think what is happening there [indiscernible] to egypt? >> the situation in egypt is a tensiouous one. i think their military anbar province -- on behalf of the citizens did what they need to do in terms of replacing the elected president. anything further i think we will wait for consultations with the administrations on how we will move ahead. >> [indiscernible] should be upholding the has to roll -- hastert rule. >> that house does not to intend to take up the senate bill. that house will do its own job
on developing and immigration bill. it is real clear from everything i've seen and read over the last couple weeks that the people expect we will have strong border security in place before we begin the process of legalizing and fixing our legal immigration system. a are going to have conversation with our members on wednesday on how we would move ahead. if a broken immigration system. the have undocumented workers here in record numbers. we just cannot turn a blind eye to this problem. it is time for congress to act. i believe the house has its job to do, and we will do our job. thanks.
>> we heard speaker boehner mansion house and senate democrats. nancy pelosi released a statement saying american classts and the american face another crisis today, yet house republicans are more anxious in finding someone to blame. both chambers returned from their july for breaks today. house is in recess now, and at 5:30 him a they will debate bills dealing with how much money banks are required to keep in reserve.
today, former cia director james woolsey on foreign and domestic issues. at 6:30c-span3 eastern. >> no one needs a partner more than the american resident, sheltered and cocooned in the great white prison. that is what i concluded after five years and hundreds of interviews about that those presidents with brave spouses, willing to speak sometimes hard truths that others are unwilling to speak to the big guy, those presidents have a distinct advantage. an example -- had pat nixon been able to cut through her husband's paranoia at watergate, it might have been avoided, but she had long given up on her
husband by the time they reached the white house. livesere leading separate as you will see in my portrayal of this saddest of all presidential couples. i do not give my husband advice. pat was quoted as saying. is there a man or woman who does not need advice from the person who knows him or her best? marriages andl how the first ladies have helped shape american history, tonight at 9:00 eastern on c-span. >> five years from now we will be looking at a world that is dominated by the traditional pay tv packages. people have waited for years to see the pay tv package blow apart, you are starting to see erosion around the adds judges, -- around the edges, but to the leakage of people out of the
system at any accumulating rate. over 10 years, that will be a large audience that the programmers and the entertainment industry will have to address and have to serve. to set up aning outer opportunity for broadcasters to turn in some of their rights if they choose to, to decide to channel share or commute to a different part of the spectrum. in return, get a part of the auction proceeds and we really range the perspective, turn around, and sell it to the wireless companies for flexible use. >> more on what is happening in the cable industry, tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span2. >> obama has nominated james comey to head the fbi. there will be a hearing tomorrow morning at 10:00 a.m. eastern.
you can see it live on c-span3. edwards spoke at the center for strategic and international studies today saying nasa should be committed to sending astronauts to mars. spoke andn edwards took questions for about 50 minutes. >> good morning. i clearly underestimated turnout, so we will be bringing in more chairs. there will be more chairs coming in soon. we are going to have a good discussion today, and i am looking forward to it. on edwards is the representative for maryland's fourth congressional district, and she has been in office since 2008.
she serves on the science, space, technology committee and is the ranking committee for the subcommittee on space. for going to law school and entering politics, numbers woman edwards were for lockheed at the goddard space center on the spacelab program. all of us know who spacelab is, hold up your hands. a good audience. someone with a real background in the industry on the issue. she will talk about the importance of federal investment , the role of nasa in economic growth, the benefits to the u.s. in maintaining a robust space program, something which i am sure most of you believe in. now we need a unifying vision in nasa's role. today you will be introducing legislation on this? could be. we'll find out. the format is the congresswoman
will speak for 20 or 30 minutes, and then we will take questions for little bit of time. with that, let me turn it over to her. thank you. [applause] much to you very everyone. i want to thank the center for strategic and international studies this morning for allowing me to join you to discuss the future of the nation cost civil space program. this islways relied and on then nosign, tremendous good work of the folks here at csis. friends andt, i see colleagues, people who work in the industry, and staff of the science committee. i can see them as well. i know they are waiting to hear what i want to say this morning, so i will get on with it. like some of you come and as jim
just described, i'm a mercury- gemini-saturn-apollo child. i watched the miracle all of those early missions on my little black-and-white television, family television, as i watched in amazement that first step that giant leap. i have been hooked since childhood, and i think the question for all of us is how we look this next generation -- we hook this next generation. while the focus on the discussion is nasa's human spaceflight effort, nasa is and should remain a multi--mission agency. i want to reaffirm a commitment today to that approach. it is the connectedness of the multi-mission concept that makes -- and united states the envy of the world. in addition to human exploration, nasa has made progress in meeting national priorities to improve
observations of our dynamic earth and its processes, explore bodies within our solar system, physics andio research astrophysics, to understand the creation of our universe. expertiseuch unique that it's missions are linked to its stated vision of reaching new heights and reviewing the -- revealing the unknowns to the benefit of mine canned -- mankind. we have to work to ensure that is balanced and funded adequately to reflect commitment to each of these components. if we expect nasa to do the work of the future, we have to provide a budget that allows those goals to be filled. it is perhaps my biggest nitpick with the way that congress does business. i might add to do that work within achievable timelines and with safety at the forefront.
as an author riser and member of the science, space, and technology committee, i'm committed to outlining that missions of the agency and to be honest about what it takes to get the job done. we are a nation of great people. we have done amazing things. but it is time for us to support nasa and our space industry in doing those amazing things in the 21st century. since its inception in 1958, nasa has been the anchor of our space's civil program. nasa has led the charge to expand the boundaries of our scientific capacity while meeting gary challenges of national significance. inspiredccess has generations of scientists and astronauts, and interested people like me. young and old continue to be captivated i the mission.
the most recent solicitation for astronauts, even without a defined new destination, resulted in an astounding 6400 applicants, nearly double the number during the space shuttle era. and easy estimate in the public ar civil -- and susie has remains robust. we have to make sure that that is true in the government realm as well, among politicians. therein lies the test to defined in next generation of expiration, to match that enthusiasm. from the beginning, nasa was tong a daunting taks, create a program largely from scratch, which is grown to a space enterprise valued at $300 billion. during this year's state of the
unit, obama called for in level of research and development that has not been seen in 50 years since the early days of the space race. while he did not mention nasa specifically, we know that space exploration has to be the centerpiece of an innovative agenda that president obama described. it is time to be unified as a nation around a bold vision for nasa. remainustry should inspired for our entire nation. in 1957, when the soviets launched sputnik, we had no idea how he would beat them in space. we just knew that we could. we set in motion the past to the moon and ushered in several decades of innovation that have leader ine premier science, engineering, and space. 21starly, our nation's century agenda records the same high risk high reward wager. we cannot shelve the past and
move into the future, but our 21st century space innovation agenda, and get used to hearing the timesld reflect that have changed in those 50 years. we have now a mature agency at the helm, where tough lessons have been learned about schedules and budget and safety. we have a mature industry that is entrepreneurial. ready to take on tasks that are assigned and also prepared to create their own. we have a mature international set of partners who are prepared to collaborate as a they never have before. the international space station was just a dress rehearsal for the future challenges. bar none, we have the best scientists, the best engineers, and the best workforce to meet those challenges. one thing that is the same as yesterday is that the united states might lead. one of nasa's recent
undertakings, the curiosity, captivated thousands of people in times square and thousands more across the country. i was one of them. i was up at night touching what was described as a scientific marvel. i just thought it was cool and it was a lot more precise than my own parallel parking. [laughter] not only did nasa demonstrate that she is still on the cutting edge of scientific research am a it also really good economics. according to the agency, curiosity helped create the during of 7000 good jobs its eight years of planning and development. most of those were in the private sector. and we think about how we grow our economy and how we create a highly skilled workforce, we have to remember that nasa has always been, will always be the source of innovation and tangible economic benefits for american families. the fact is that from the
beginning nasa and the entire space industry has always been good business. theland is home to 17 of top aerospace companies, but from startups from the large corporations, big and small universities, the united states is fertile ground for space entrepreneurs. during the early years, technology and development proceeded at a rapid pace to meet those challenges. from rocketry to aeronautics, and commercialization of lunar technology. the result has magnified the influence of the space exploration. my favorite publications is the journal "spinoff." thingsknowing about the that come from technology development that was spawned by space exploration. water purification technology used on the apollo spacecraft is now employed in several applications to kill bacteria,
viruses, hoalgae, and yet my own home water filter. computer advances have made possible process management systems, improve manufacturing. this morning as i was getting dressed, it was a company running an ad on television about its improved manufacturing processes. they were all electronic and digitized and computerized. that is because of nasa technology. nuclear magnetic resonance tomography,computer microelectronics used to regulate heart pumps, lasers for satellite-based atmospheric research used for my eye laser surgery, and cool suits used by havenauts on the moon walk transformed medical technology. the list goes on and on.
i go tosometimes schools and described his tunes my connection -- and described to students my connection to technology, and i described my car accident where the airbag saved my life with nasa technology. we cannot find a car today that does not have that technology in place. and we commit ourselves to ambitious goals, he should do with confidence that we have a workforce capable of truly awe- inspiring results. today that workforce is waiting for a bold vision for the future that will take us to the next frontier. has one point 4 million twitter followers. i know there are a lot in this room. in 1997, the landing of nasaurner, a smaller l and later spirit and
opportunity had their time when they landed on mars. one can only imagine what will happen when people land on mars. that next great frontier is really mars and i agree. iis is our moment to unite did truly audacious vision. it is time to meet the american public where it already is him and the american public is already online, with curiosity. we have a choice. we can either hold on to and reminisce about past visions or we can chart a bold new vision for 21st century space exploration and innovation. i want to choose the latter. we do not need another report or commission. it is time that we commit to a
manned mars mission. this will require collected and uniform support on the part of the president, congress, nasa, and it's workforce, the private sector, and the scientific community, all of us on one page and of one mind. i think part of what has happened over these last couple of decades is even at the height 135,000 or so folks and now down to 50,000, part of that in part is because a lack of vision and clarity on andpart of policymakers, that truly has to change in order for the agency and the industry to succeed. we have a space agency that has demonstrated it can operate in fast forward and make mars happened. we need to give it the tools and resources that it needs to succeed. investments in our civil space
enterprise fosters commercialization and grows our economy, while improving international competitiveness. lacking an ambitious and unifying vision, coupled with --has beeng, are paralyzed and has been characterized by stops and redirection. that inspires kindergartners, we risk losing our mobile edge in space and jeopardize advancement in innovation and economic development. failure to establish a visionary goal undermines our ability to attract and maintain the skills sets that are necessary for high technology projects. our current experienced workforce continues to age. present company excluded. jeopardy of switching
industries because of uncertain long-term missions and declining around will increase the potential for risk. the reality is we cannot afford to have our best leave the space workforce. if our preeminence diminishes, so will our workforce. the risk of diminishing stature in space cannot be overstated. while the united states remains a leader, there are increasingly ing they are not just buying to put satellites in orbit, but they are planning ambitious missions that include the moon, their earth asteroids, and even a mission to mars. the chinese are taking serious steps to build their graham, and recently completed their fifth manned mission at half goals to complete a sample return mars mission by 2030. in our current dependence to the russians to access the space
station is another area of consternation that has to be fixed. while these nations and others will experience varying degrees of success, it should not be our goal to engage in a competitive race, but if competition is necessary for us, to gun the engine is, then we have to do that. our goal has to be to capitalize our current expertise in the spirit of exploration that is helped us succeed. the truth is space exploration is truly difficult. patients can take unexpected turns and unforeseen challenges are certain to arise. by colleagues on the house science committee also have to be challenged to appreciate the complex scientific missions and the fact that no one can plan for the unknown. space, ames just happen. nasa and its talented partners of which there are many has been always been capable of meeting
any challenges presented. with over 100 successfully launched man flights in addition to its other mission directorate activities, like developing the hubble space telescope, spacecraft to study jupiter and saturn and explore outer space, satellitesbserving that have revolutionized our processes, the agency has a success rate that far exceeds other nations'. activities, to mars nasa has completed 13 successful missions out of 19 attempts. comparatively, the russians have and 15tial successes failed missions. curiosity became the sixth river to attempt to land on mars and is nasa's fourth river. -- rover. the rover became the curiosity advancedsa's most
spacecraft that survived one of the most complex landings. the instruments on board will be essential to answering some of our questions about the origins of life and the potential for other life forms in our universe. as you can imagine, the challenges with a manned mission to mars are manifold compared to her robotic mission. the first of which is safety and the second is funding in the current fiscal environment. i would caution us because if dwight eisenhower or president kennedy had thought about the funding priorities in getting to the moon, they would have said no. but they did not. they said yes. and they were ok not to even live to see that accomplished. our challenge has to be the same. if we commit today to reach mars by 2030, we will have more than a 15-year funding profile for
planning and development to be the challenges of accomplishing a complex mission. if you think about that kindergartner today, that means that within that child's lifetime, that child will get to experience what some of us, what i experienced when we did apollo and gemini and saturn. a 15-year funding window. the major scientific challenge will be to understand the impact of deep-space missions on humans. not only will astronauts travel for long times in compact space, but during space travel, astronauts will experience dangerous cosmic rays resulting in high levels of radiation. with our current technology, it would take six months to reach mars and another six to return to earth, but that is the point. you're not talking about our current technology. just to travel to and from mars radiationse humans to
levels that would exceed the maximum allowable career limit for a nasa astronaut. this is why we need new technology investment. curiosity's scientistss allowing to consider implications to astronauts as well as the shielding equipment and life support that will be needed to safely transport nasa astronauts to and from mars. given the safety priority, nasa has to develop lighter shielding, new propulsion technology that can take astronauts to mars faster. and a heavy lift system that can support all the necessities. these are serious challenges. solar electric propulsion or even nuclear thermal proposal will be critical to the long- term plan for this ocean. asset and some private companies
are working on propulsion technology aimed at expediting the journey. we have already begun the process. the question is whether we will commit to seeing it through. we would also need to consider how we can if i'll the current space launch system to meet there are mission mission requirements. these are answerable questions, but we must get to the task of actually answering them. dissentlenge of entry and landing comes next. for the rover, the mars science leverage for it developed i hide-position system that requires six different spacecraft if iterations, 76 pyrotechnic devices, and the largest supersonic parachute ever designed and manufactured, and more than 500,000 lines of code to execute the required maneuvers to safely ease curiosity to the surface. 500,000 lines of code? that is a lot of jobs in the
industry. it is a lot of testing, too. the spacecraft that will carry humans to mars would be the size of a two-shtory home. and iter weighs a ton, is only comparable to a small car. the have a lot of work to do. initial challenges are clear and significant, but the potential benefits to include technological advancement, potential resource mining, and an improved understanding of our earth's history makes this mission worth doing and worth doing safely. in order to overcome bush the challenging and high and daring endeavor, we have to declare nation that a manned mission to mars is a priority and a program of national significance. we need to determine which milestone along the road to mars we address the risks and challenges to reach the martian surface and safely return. authorizationa's acts have authorized a
steppingstone approach to expiration. this is not new. our mission to the moon took steps to the mercury, gemini, and early apollo missions to land humans on the moon. we need to take a stepping stone approach to be reaching mars. near earthde lagrangian points,ng that the mideast depths can be taken. i want to caution and make clear that in my view either congress nor the president should assign any of these destinations to nasa in a roadmap to mars. it is not our job. he have to resist the urge to prescribe the technical requirements and instead allow the competent workforce at nasa and within the scientific, engineering, and academic community, from top to bottom,
to determine the necessary steps. neither president find is in our nor president kennedy -- neither president eisenhower nor president and 80 did the job of scientists and engineers and we should not be doing that either. another component is establishing whether the international space station will be available as a test bed beyond 2020. will allow usiss to research further the impact of microgravity on the human body. in spacerovide a base for simulations and enable technology testing. this will provide an opportunity to engage our international partners early to determine their role in this long-term program. we will need them and we want them. we also want them to be ready to be with us. we will also need to consider the mars sample return mission, and the collection of sample mars rocks to muscle, and for
return and allowing mars scientists to conduct analysis to understand the martian environment before sending our astronauts. a long-term plan to reach mars should consider robotic missions to test and demonstrate technologies and assess the hazards or risks as part of a roadmap. defining nasa's vision in developing a clear roadmap is a priority of mine, and i hope to outline this priority to the 2013 nasa authorization act, which will be released later today. a clear vision and roadmap will provide a certainty and direction needed to set nasa on the right course and reawaken our position as a nation in the driver seat of two 21st-century innovation. curiosity, the to explore and understand the world and universe around us has defined humankind.
we have constructed high-powered telescopes that we can look into the heavens, we have developed rockets powerful enough to launch into space, and we have landed and made vehicles on another planet. mankind has shown weekend, which nearly anything when we are truly determined. i know that the next time i lay look into beach and the stars and i see mars them i want to note it is americans who have the capacity to get us there. john kennedy said it best that we do not need to choose exploration and innovation because they are easy, but because they are hard. i hope we can continue to honor that spirit that has brought us so far and will take us even farther than we can imagine. i am ready, and so should we all be. thank you all very much.
now the hard part, the questions. how do we do this? >> i will pick them out, you answer them. get presidents to follow this line? [indiscernible] how do we pass these presidential cycles [indiscernible] how do you do that? >> it is a really great question because we know that politics plays a huge role in all of these discussions.
this is why i am calling on all of us develop collectively a unified vision. it has actually been very difficult for the agency and for the private sector workforce to figure out who is on first, from one president to a different vision and direction from one congress to the next. it is not even just about presidents and administrations. it is about what congress has done. what i am saying to you today is it is time for us to stop that. and to come up with a unified vision, something that the congress, the president, and the agency all sign off on, so that our industry knows where to go next. we have developed this robust industry, and this misdirection puts us on the verge of allowing it to sink before our eyes. good i asked people to do
favors, introduce yourself and wait for the microphone. you said that congress should not tell nasa what would be the appropriate steps to take to get to mars. i'm wondering if there was an effort in your subcommittee to direct nasa to do whether they should do certain steps are not, and if there was an effort, if you did anything to fend that off, or will that be in the authorization report? >> that is what i am cautioning against. that is what i am cautioning against. who workedsomebody in the industry for a time and on a really wonderful project, one of the sensibilities that i think i bring to this is knowing that there are really incredibly competent, talented am a smart people who are not in the congress who need to figure this out.
and that our goal has to be like a board of directors, to set a vision, to offer some clarity in that vision, and then to leave it to those who are really talented to figure it out. and so while i think you could hear some of that in some of the discussions that have taken place in our committee over the last several weeks and months, again, what i am saying today is that that has to stop in order for this industry to grow, in order for the agency to evolve, in order for our international partners to understand what is next. and for those in our academic community to also be on that page and of that mind, what is interesting to me, and we could hear it especially over these --t hubble of weeks, is that last couple of weeks, is that there is a lot of clarity within the scientific community, but they have to be the ones that's
not the direction and write that road that. he should be the ones to say that we believe in the great vision and now let's haven't fulfilled. front.e you.ank [indiscernible] the secretary of state mr. kerry [indiscernible] many subjects, especially on defense, space, and explorations. there is a lot of opportunities in space technology. can you through some light on that, because there will be a lot of jobs in america.
>> what i would say to that is was part ofl when i the industry, and the international community was really in its infancy. that is really not true today. and so i think we are going to have an awful lot of strategic ardor's if we have a unified vision. will allow american corporations but to create jobs in the united states, but also across the globe. whether that is with india -- and that is a partnership that will facilitate the technological relationships that we need -- but there are many all around the world that would be buoyed by robust leadership on the part of the united states. when i say the united states has to lead, it is not the kind of leadership that we experienced in the 1960's went because of
the cold war and other aspects, we were that game in town. today is a very different challenge. when the united states leads, it coordinates the work of our international partners, it galvanizes the work of what is anymore a young and growing industry, but is very mature and can do lots of things on its own, and it galvanizes scientists and researchers around the world. nasa is going to be at the that, but we will have a lot of other partners. ahead. >> i am from aerospace corporation. to emphasize the homework we need to do to get where we want to go in the solar system. you can all agree with that.
congress should not be telling scientists how to do their job. doesn't that conflict with the idea that congress is going to say thou shalt go to mars and now shop do it by 2030? if you take that approach, you risk having something that we do not want, which i refer to as apollo 2.0. this is a bad thing because that means we would maybe have one or two missions that would be elaborate scientific field trips, and no follow-up for generations. we do not want to get into that. should we not be moving away all the notion that it is about destinations and deadlines, and instead took us on something like leaders faced a moment which will teach us the things we need go out further and at the same time ring the private sector on board as something more than government contractors? >> i have not spelled that out,
and i laid out a wide array of opportunities that there are for this kind of robust development. it is actually helpful frankly for the public am up for us to have a big goal in mind, that people understand they can look up to. a much as we need to develop private sector that operates on its own, and there are a lot of players in the private sector now who are not as dependent on that aret contractors thinking intelligently about the future and about technology. the fact is that unless the american public writ large , thenes this idea politicians are not going to have the capacity and the backbone to provide the resources that are necessary for development. i do not know how many of you, but i certainly do, as i go
around through my community, and we are in tough economic times, i hear people all the time say, well, we need to fund schools or roads or bridges, or you need thing, then why are we funding space? the reason we make investments in space is for all those reasons that i outlined, because 10 fold or 100 fold in terms of technologies being developed, the industries being created, and the opportunities there will be for people who are not just invested but fors programs, companies, entrepreneurs, scientists can't and researchers who are thinking beyond the box of what the nasa frame will be. that is a vision that i believe the american public can invest in and is prepared to do, but i think it does require us to be
able to say that there is some big goal out there, because we embrace ourselves around goals. i hear your caution, that we do not just want to be to send a whole bunch of resources into one place and let that be the end of it. -- this efforts has to spawn a new sense of adventure and frontier, and i believe it can do that. that fellow right there and then we will get to the one in the back. >> i am with 21st century science and technology magazine. i appreciate what you have to say. it is refreshing someone with this level of vision. two problems. there has to be a reeducating of whate in government about real economic value is, what
growth is, that it cannot be measured in dollars and cents, but things like were we to develop nuclear rocket technology, how would that spin off the change everything in our economy? also fusion, what would that do for it? i want to know what you think in as far as what real economic growth is, how the program could get us out of this economic crisis, and there's a crisis in education. you hear hear from industry, but she told factories, that they do not have that they were forced to carry out this kind of aission, and were we to have robust space program, we would be more at >> a couple of really good points. when i think of them learning -- stem